NASA’s ‘living planet” team thinks we only have one climate and one type of people on Earth

Science and emotion should never intersect, here’s proof. From NASA Goddard:

Creating a major scientific visualization takes considerable time and expertise. A team of scientists and data visualizers work together to building an artful depiction of hard data – whether it be an animation of sea surface temperature, hurricane paths, or life on Planet Earth. Get a closer look at how the “Living Planet” visualization was created from the perspective of scientists Gene Feldman and Compton Tucker and SVS data visualizer, Alex Kekesi.

 

From the transcript:

This is our Living Planet.

Exactly, and the more we as humans on this planet, inhabitants of the planet, look as this as one entity that we are all responsible for, I think the sooner we will be able to come up with solutions to a lot of the problems that we’re facing right now. We have to look at this as one planet where what happens in place effects what happens in another place.

One planet, one climate, one people we’re all in this together.

Bold, mine. h/t to WUWT reader Clyde Spencer.

Okaaaay. One planet, sure. One climate and one people? No.

There’s about 30 different climates all around the world, something we’ve known for over 100 years.

The Köppen climate classification is one of the most widely used climate classification systems. It was first published by the climatologist Wladimir Köppen (1846-1940) in 1884,[2][3] with several later modifications by Köppen, notably in 1918 and 1936.[4][5] Later, the climatologist Rudolf Geiger (1954, 1961) collaborated with Köppen on changes to the classification system, which is thus sometimes called the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system.[6][7]

The Köppen climate classification divides climates into five main climate groups, with each group being divided based on seasonal precipitation and temperature patterns. The five main groups are A (tropical), B (dry), C (temperate), D (continental), and E (polar). Each group and subgroup is represented by a letter. All climates are assigned a main group (the first letter). All climates except for those in the E group are assigned a seasonal precipitation subgroup (the second letter). For example, Af indicates a tropical rainforest climate. The system assigns a temperature subgroup for all groups other than those in the Agroup, indicated by the third letter for climates in BC, and D, and the second letter for climates in E. For example, Cfb indicates an oceanic climate with warm summers as indicated by the ending b. Climates are classified based on specific criteria unique to each climate type

The map:

Just look at how many climate zones there are in South Asia:

One people?

Nope. According to data, there are 8313 different cultures in the world. The idea that they’ll all come together in some kumbahyah moment on climate is just patently absurd.

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “NASA’s ‘living planet” team thinks we only have one climate and one type of people on Earth

    • The Artful Dodger comes to mind.

      The dictionary definition of artful:

      (of a person or action) clever or skillful, typically in a crafty or cunning way.

      I see so many examples of people with many years of schooling who are clearly uneducated.

  1. “One planet, one climate, one people we’re all in this together.”

    I am reminded of the following:

    “Today we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives.
    We have created for the first time in all history a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory true thoughts.
    Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth.
    We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause.
    Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion.
    We shall prevail!”

    (From Apple’s “1984” commercial)

  2. The video shows the living Earth well.
    To me it also shows how healthy and strong is planet Earth, and how it is not going to be done in by a tiny doubling of a trace gas, CO2.

    • Ein Planet, ein Klima, ein Leiter.

      Merkel ist doch kein Führer, aber ein Gross-Leiter.

      Führen is not used in the contemporary German. The new leader is from the verb leiten.

  3. Good visual…..
    ..made me realize the vast majority of this planet is not doing one damn thing about GW
    good

  4. woot woot great news!! One climate … no more looking at zones for what plants/seeds to plant when or where.. absolutely AWESOME!!!! Man this gorebull worming is great!!!!

    Cheers!
    Joe

    • My first thought while listening to the moderators introduce themselves on the video was “Why are these people working for NASA, shouldn’t they work for NOAA?”

  5. Problems we’re facing? Like for example overfishing, which we barely hear about?

    CO2 is just the central player in the belief system that CO2 might cause significant warming. But since some want to elevate that belief system in order to justify action, this belief system morphs into a pious fraud: it’s OK if we exaggerate the effects of CO2, or else make them up, because we want to get people to act upon our belief system. And then the pious fraud morphs into the irrefutable truth.

    So suddenly we have reefs dying and oceans rising and unprecedented temperatures. I don’t think any of this is either real or due to CO2; it’s simply part of a pious fraud that’s been perpetrated upon us because in the minds of those who uphold the belief system of CO2 warming, the end justifies the means. So yes, we’re lying, but no, we’re not going to admit this (maybe not even to ourselves) because we must save the planet! Lying becomes a necessary evil because the ends justify the means. We might not be prepared to admit that this is a lie since we have so much emotional energy invested in it and we are, at heart, good people.

    But really it’s just a pious fraud. That’s all this CO2 nonsense is: assumptions and speculation masquerading as the irrefutable truth and driven by the implicit assumption that the ends justify the means.

    It’s high time we stopped fooling ourselves. Virtually nothing that’s happening is due to CO2.

    /end of preaching to the converted

  6. NASA should NOT be creating any ” scientific visualizations”, NASA’s mission is to build spaceships and go places in them. I want a tax refund of the money NASA wasted going nowhere.

  7. It is generally acknowledged that the polar region is warming at twice the rate of the global average. I would imagine that all the climate zones exhibit different climate change patterns. Yet, all we hear about is one number — the global annual average temperature. If climatologists would pay more attention to the changes in high and low temperatures in the different climate zones I’m sure that we would learn a lot more than from just one number.

    • Is learning something that they are really interested in … is it even near the top of the list?

  8. Is there any way I can get my tax money back? It went into their pockets, and they come up with this tripe? This is the best they can do?

    I’m just shaking my head over the waste of time and energy that goes into this hogwash. If they have nothing better to do than concoct this asinine twaddle, they need to find real jobs in the real world – something involving cleaning sidewalks for grumpy old ladies and maybe street crossing guards for kids on their way to school.

    No wonder I get fed up with this nonsense. They have FAR too much time on their hands.

    • It sure is a pretty picture though! Who knew the earth had seasonal cycles? Finding that out must be worth the money.

    • Paul,
      I think 97% of ‘Climate Scientists’ do not know the Sahel is greening.
      And, anyway, it’s only a model.
      So, send more grant money, and you can have Sahul and the Sahel greening.
      Or blueing, or yellowing.
      You pay the Climate Piper – you call the tune.
      And the colour [color if you prefer].

      Auto in South London, where we can get three seasons in a day – never mind climates!

  9. Yes. Pretty data-visualizations. Loved it. In many areas of science that is what gets you funded, often at the expense of others more focused on the science itself. Unfortunate, but very very true in my experience. Style often beats substance, hands down.

    But the sentence that stood out for me was the one where she said

    “..the people in the room right now, if you ask yourself the question “What have I done to make sure that the earth is a safer and healthier place..”

    Twaddle. Her words and tone seemed, IMO, to betray a strong commitment to unthinking activism, not truth or science, or even making videos from scientific data, which I think is her job.

    What do her words even mean? Is it safe and healthy to experience the regular climates of Antarctica or equatorial rain-forest, or even most of the rest of planet? Absolutely not. We hate living under those conditions for good reasons, and go to great lengths to ameliorate them with shelter, heating and/or air-conditioning. That is what really makes it “safer and healthier” for humans. The rest of creation deals with it in its own way. Always has, always will. Nobody I know of seriously proposes that we change it in some way to make it a “safer and healthier place”. That is just pure, unadulterated green drivel, spouted by someone who doesn’t actually have to experience the vicissitudes of of some mythical “one climate”.

    • Something else such people would do well to ask themselves, is “Why do people actually build houses?”
      Hint: We did it long before air conditioning was invented, so it wasn’t done to keep cool.

  10. Judith Curry decries over-simplification by climate scientists in her recent debate.

    These guys prove her point.

    • Oversimplification is an understatement. By the end of the video I was thinking this could be the conversation of zombie hippies.

  11. Since Truman’s nuclear terrorism at Nagasaki and Hiroshima failed to realize Lord Bertrand Russell’s One World Gov’t (well documented) Margaret Mead came up with the “Endangered Atmosphere” in 1974. Russell’s ghost still shambles in the shadows of hallowed Uni. Halls, revered, whispering from below – One World Gov’t. The emotion portrayed reeks of a Seance.
    Scientists – we have problem! If ye renegue the Vatican will likely send an exorcist, and the theater will be complete.

  12. one planet? Not even sure I live on the same planet than those nutty people, most of the time.

  13. Cultures aren’t people. People are people. There’s one species of human being – honest, I looked it up. Cultures are artificial constructs, not people.

    • So true, but racists will never believe that. They love being victims of gorebull warming amongst the many other things they’re victims of. I even have claimed victimization in the past for my race, but I never wanted money or govt. benefits because of it. It’s interesting how when we actually look at the diseases that one race says they’re more prone to it usually goes away when you subtract lifestyle, eating habits, sleep patterns, etcetera. It will be a great day on our C02 loving planet when we all see each other as one people with small surface differences.

    • When it comes down to getting people to agree, varying cultures have a lot to do with why they don’t.

Comments are closed.