Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

The University of East Anglia has released an interactive Google Earth layer with local temperature data

Dana Nuccitelli Tuesday 4 February 2014 13.00 GMT

theguardian.com

If you've ever wondered how much global warming has raised local temperatures in your area or elsewhere on the globe, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (UEA CRU) has just released a new interactive Google Earth layer that will let you answer this question with ease. UEA CRU is one of the scientific organizations that compile temperature data from around the world. Their temperature dataset over land is called CRUTEM4, and is one of the most widely used records of the climate system.

The new Google Earth format allows users to scroll around the world, zoom in on 6,000 weather stations, and view monthly, seasonal and annual temperature data more easily than ever before. Users can drill down to see some 20,000 graphs – some of which show temperature records dating back to 1850.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/04/global-warming-google-earth-uea

-- The Guardian 2014-02-04

Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

The University of East Anglia has released an interactive Google Earth layer with local temperature data

Dana Nuccitelli Tuesday 4 February 2014 13.00 GMT

theguardian.com

If you've ever wondered how much global warming has raised local temperatures in your area or elsewhere on the globe, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (UEA CRU) has just released a new interactive Google Earth layer that will let you answer this question with ease. UEA CRU is one of the scientific organizations that compile temperature data from around the world. Their temperature dataset over land is called CRUTEM4, and is one of the most widely used records of the climate system.

The new Google Earth format allows users to scroll around the world, zoom in on 6,000 weather stations, and view monthly, seasonal and annual temperature data more easily than ever before. Users can drill down to see some 20,000 graphs – some of which show temperature records dating back to 1850.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/04/global-warming-google-earth-uea

-- The Guardian 2014-02-04

Thanks for the info. Please stop using the term "global warming". "climate change" is the term most suitable. As soon as there is unseasonaly cold weather the nae sayers say "so much for global warming"

Sent from my KFTT using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Thanks for the info. Please stop using the term "global warming". "climate change" is the term most suitable. As soon as there is unseasonaly cold weather the nae sayers say "so much for global warming"

I read somewhere there was once an 'Ice Age' and the world has been warming up ever since with some fluctuations over time, the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

Geologists call this process climate change.

...Please stop using the term "global warming"...

I doubt that the editors of The Guardian will be seeing your above comment and I suggest that you click on the link at the bottom of the OP. On the new window that opens, at the top of the screen click on About us, then on Contact us. On the next page, look for the email address under the heading Corrections and clarifications of editorial content - the readers' editors and write to that address.

This is the graph for Bankgok:

Is this the same bunch of UEA climate experts who had to apologise for fiddling the figures - yeah thought so

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8390982.stm

Is this the same bunch of UEA climate experts who had to apologise for fiddling the figures - yeah thought so

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8390982.stm

Fiddling the figures is one thing, but breaking the law to try and cover it up is the only thing they could have got UEA on legally.

As UEA's Climate Research Unit (CRU) director Phil Jones wrote to US colleagues:

The two MMs [skeptic researchers McIntyre and McKittrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.

--

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

The only reason he wasn't prosecuted is that the statute of limitations ran out before the police started to act.

So given what CRU has been up to with the data, it's hard to know what's going on with global temperatures.

Unless, of course, you examine the satellite data, which says warmer in some places, colder in others, and globally, no change.

This is the graph for Bankgok:

Bangkok - annual.png

So all the "cold" years from year 2000 and onward are by some miracle just average, which NEVER happen in the preceding 100 years. I think the local Al Gore have been tampering with the data.

This is the graph for Bankgok:

Bangkok - annual.png

We just had the coldest winter in BK for 30 years.

What a shame that chart stops at 2006, just when it started getting colder.

Just a coincidence, I imagine.

And in timely fashion, the latest official satellite global temperature graph has been published.

That's what Global Warming looks like when you free it from the unscrupulous grasp of the activists.

And in timely fashion, the latest official satellite global temperature graph has been published.

That's what Global Warming looks like when you free it from the unscrupulous grasp of the activists.

I suggest you use The Google and type in "global mean temperature" and look at all the long term graphs that begin around 1880, the beginning of the industrilaized age, and note the steep rise in mean global temperature. But I am not going to persuade the deniers that mankind, well really the global corporatocracy, has not initiated a self-destructive behavioral pattern that is artifically warming the planet. But go ahead and keep cooling off by drinking the FOX news Kool-Aid.

Even if global warming is occurring it's a waste of time and money the west trying to control the output of Co2 when India, China,Africa, Latin America and closer to home Thailand continue to burn everything.

Try convincing Thai farmers they should worry about rice field burning and the world in 50 years time.

But go ahead and keep cooling off by drinking the FOX news Kool-Aid.

The graph isn't from Fox News, it's from a company contracted by NASA to analyse satellite data on global temperatures.

Even if global warming is occurring it's a waste of time and money the west trying to control the output of Co2 when India, China,Africa, Latin America and closer to home Thailand continue to burn everything.

Try convincing Thai farmers they should worry about rice field burning and the world in 50 years time.

That is correct. EVERY years since the Global Warbing debate have started oil, gas and coal production have increased year after year. Once hydro carbons are produced they only go one way and that is as CO2 into our atmosphere.

It is a global experiment and we can all just sit back and enjoy the ride. They are now talking about 450 ppm of CO2 as being a tipping point, but humanity will not stop there. Just the known coal reserves will bring us to 5,000 ppm of CO2, which by the way is the recommended max limit for an 8 hours work day.

One day u might have a CO2 scrupper sitting next to your air-con unit.

Recently, a biography came out about Roger Ailes, who is the top banana at Fox News. It mentioned how domineering he is in regards to hammering home his personal agenda. So happens (surprise!) Mr. Ailes is fervently opposed to any notion that the Earth's mean temperatures (and sea levels) are rising. Ailes is not a scientist, but he's rich, has a lot of corporate friends and vested interests, and is very adept at domineering meetings at Fox News where agendas are discussed. Among other things, Ailes knows that if a news organization keeps hammering on one side of a particular topic, for weeks and months, that opinion will soak in with portions of the general public. He did it with Bengazi, and he's doing it with his opposition to GW. Very effective.

Here's an interesting compilation of comparison charts:

Great sets of data, shame most of them are totally bogus.

How did they get all those temperature readings?

No satellites.

Someone dipping a thermometer in the water from a moving boat?

Every tried reading a mercury thermometer to an accuracy of 0.2 of a degree in a moving boat (or anywhere else)?

Why do they all end at year 2000?

In the info age, no excuse to not have charts current, 14 years out of date, you gotta be joking.

Sea level chart?

Where were the readings taken, some places rise, some places sink, for many reasons.

(ground water extraction, Interglacial isostatic adjustment, tectonics)

Accurate average sea level measurements have only been possible since 1997 (satellite).

Here's an interesting compilation of comparison charts:

To be fair, we need to know the source of that chart. Will be fun to see how the world looks in 2030.

Great sets of data, shame most of them are totally bogus.

How did they get all those temperature readings?

No satellites.

Someone dipping a thermometer in the water from a moving boat?

Every tried reading a mercury thermometer to an accuracy of 0.2 of a degree in a moving boat (or anywhere else)?

Why do they all end at year 2000? In the info age, no excuse to not have charts current, 14 years out of date, you gotta be joking.

Sea level chart? Where were the readings taken, some places rise, some places sink, for many reasons.

(ground water extraction, Interglacial isostatic adjustment, tectonics)

Accurate average sea level measurements have only been possible since 1997 (satellite).

The data goes beyond the year 2000. Look at the little mark above 2000, and you'll see. Taking accurate temperatures (and other measurements) is a big part of what science is about. If you check closely how scientists gauge their data, you may be surprised at some of the tools and methods they use. It's a bit beyond going out in a rowboat and dipping a thermometer in the ocean. Or going out to a pier with a yardstick to measure sea level.

The type of response, above, to real scientific data, is expected for those who refuse to accept the changes going on with the effects of climate. It's human nature: when a person gets totally fixated upon either not wanting to accept something, or conversely, fixated upon an idea .....then absolutely nothing will sway that person's fixation.

It's human nature: when a person gets totally fixated upon either not wanting to accept something, or conversely, fixated upon an idea .....then absolutely nothing will sway that person's fixation.

That is undoubtedly true. But many climate Alarmists are so lacking in self-awareness that they believe this truism only applies to their ideological opponents rather than humanity in general and hence themselves as well.

One only has to look at the loony pronouncements of people such as Sir Bob ("human race extinct by 2030") or Clive ("100 meters sea level rise") Hamilton, or anything emanating from Weepy Bill McKibben or Greenpeace to know that fixation runs right across the political spectrum.

Good morning kids and thanks for tuning in to Thai Visa. Today we're going to learn all about regression to the mean, or RTM.

When doing probability or statistical analysis we must always consider RTM, especially when examining small or truncated data sets, to avoid making erroneous conclusions. Natural phenomena such as, say... for example, climate change, tend to be attributed to incorrect causes when RTM is not taken into consideration by the data analyst.

Take, for example, this chart (which is not based on any data - it is for illustrative purposes only):

If this chart were measuring global temperature, we could easily be lead astray by looking at the timeframe from 1850 to 1925 and concluding that we'll all be toast in a few year's time. Or by looking at the 25 year period beginning 1950 and concluding that an ice age must certainly be coming. Of course when we step back and consider all data points, we get the big picture and understand that those big changes were followed by "corrections", or regressions to the mean value. So I just want to caution all you kids about drawing conclusions about major - potentially catastrophic events - by looking at 17 years and five months worth of data.

Here's a four-minute video that gives a good explanation about cherry-picking small data sets to arrive at a preferred conclusion (and shows when Monckton has actually did this using only two year's worth of data!): Arctic Ice Has Returned.

I also want to point out the pitfalls of reading only the headlines and not the article. For example, it's easy to find blog after blog that have headlines such as "Arctic sea ice extent continues to expand to near record levels..." if you actually read the article you'll see that:

Including 2014, sea ice extent for January is declining at a rate of 3.2% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2012 average, or at a rate of 47,800 square kilometers (18,500 square miles) per year. January 2014 is the fourth lowest extent in the satellite record, behind 2005, 2006, and the record low January 2011.

[bolding mine]

Got that? January is the fourth lowest record, behind 2005, 06, and the record low in 11. So the headline, near as I can tell, is comparing January 2014's (still very low) levels to the even lower levels from 2011, and calling that regression to the mean 'a record increase'.

Great sets of data, shame most of them are totally bogus.

How did they get all those temperature readings?

No satellites.

Someone dipping a thermometer in the water from a moving boat?

Every tried reading a mercury thermometer to an accuracy of 0.2 of a degree in a moving boat (or anywhere else)?

Why do they all end at year 2000? In the info age, no excuse to not have charts current, 14 years out of date, you gotta be joking.

Sea level chart? Where were the readings taken, some places rise, some places sink, for many reasons.

(ground water extraction, Interglacial isostatic adjustment, tectonics)

Accurate average sea level measurements have only been possible since 1997 (satellite).

The data goes beyond the year 2000. Look at the little mark above 2000, and you'll see. Taking accurate temperatures (and other measurements) is a big part of what science is about. If you check closely how scientists gauge their data, you may be surprised at some of the tools and methods they use. It's a bit beyond going out in a rowboat and dipping a thermometer in the ocean. Or going out to a pier with a yardstick to measure sea level.

The type of response, above, to real scientific data, is expected for those who refuse to accept the changes going on with the effects of climate. It's human nature: when a person gets totally fixated upon either not wanting to accept something, or conversely, fixated upon an idea .....then absolutely nothing will sway that person's fixation.

How accurate do you think sea temperature readings taken in 1850 could have been?

You might want to use your own brain, instead of being spoon fed ridiculous data.

CFC, not CO2 appears to be the cause of previous century's rapid warming. Quite compelling research; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130530132443.htm

Also explains why the past 12+ years there has been a slight cooling.

Good to know what can actually heat up the planet, for when the next ice age occurs...

It's human nature: when a person gets totally fixated upon either not wanting to accept something, or conversely, fixated upon an idea .....then absolutely nothing will sway that person's fixation.

That is undoubtedly true. But many climate Alarmists are so lacking in self-awareness that they believe this truism only applies to their ideological opponents rather than humanity in general and hence themselves as well.

One only has to look at the loony pronouncements of people such as Sir Bob ("human race extinct by 2030") or Clive ("100 meters sea level rise") Hamilton, or anything emanating from Weepy Bill McKibben or Greenpeace to know that fixation runs right across the political spectrum.

I don't know who those people are, who are quoted. Thankfully, we live in a society where anyone can pontificate on nearly anything (a few restrictions, like boldly claiming to want to kill a prominent person, or bomb a movie theater, etc.). There are nutballs all across the political spectrum. I have a friend who firmly believes some man-made thumping machine in the Pacific caused the Fukushima earthquake. I go with non-political-agenda-driven scientific data. I read Discovery magazine and National Geographic, (and other mainstream non-fiction mags) for example. I know there are more precisely scientific publications, but the 2 mags I mentioned get much of their material from more scholarly studies. I respect the fact that many scientists, in many disciplines, are studying climate change. Are they perfect? No. But at least they're out there garnering data - sometimes in hardship conditions. On the other side of the aisle are people like Roger Ailes who keeps hammering away, with the most watched cable TV news station (his own FOX), who is like a pit bull with one end of a tether. He won't let go, and he has tubs of money and influence to continue to parlay his myopic way he can mold some peoples' thoughts.

I respect the fact that many scientists, in many disciplines, are studying climate change. Are they perfect? No. But at least they're out there garnering data - sometimes in hardship conditions. On the other side of the aisle are people like Roger Ailes who keeps hammering away, with the most watched cable TV news station (his own FOX), who is like a pit bull with one end of a tether. He won't let go, and he has tubs of money and influence to continue to parlay his myopic way he can mold some peoples' thoughts.

Yes, it's one of those irregular verbs:

I follow the dispassionate science

You have a political agenda

He is a filthy oil-funded denier

We are working to save the planet

You are greedily wasting earth's resources

They are imperilling future generations

The global warming doom mongers remind me of the Aids adverts on UK tv in the 1980's suggesting mankind would soon be wiped out across the planet.

It proved to be a damp squib.

Whether you (or I) are right or wrong on this issue, the statement "people believe what they want to believe" could never have possibly been proven more true than it is here in this "debate".

The global warming doom mongers remind me of the Aids adverts on UK tv in the 1980's suggesting mankind would soon be wiped out across the planet.

It proved to be a damp squib.

The difference between the two are enormous, but you can rest assured that there was a huge amount of money, research and resources, not to mention some major life-style changes that helped to SLOW the AIDS epidemic. It is far from over.

Stay on the topic of global warming.

There seem to be a few sceptics in this thread so it would be interesting to hear from them why they think this disturbing phenomena is occurring.

In Siberia an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres— the size of France and Germany combined— has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years.It could take as little as a 1.5 degree rise in global temperature to thaw Siberia permanently, potentially releasing catastrophic levels of cartbon dioxide and methane from the soil.

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-brief/69684-melting-siberian-permafrost-threatens-major-methane-release

Scientists are concerned about this permafrost because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which then warms up more quickly than ice and snow. This leads to a vicious cycle because it accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws. Projections of the release of methane is to effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming

Even if I was prepared to accept the theory of global warming how could anyone ever get all the countries in the world to agree a strategy?

The meagre attempts by countries such as the UK will never out weight Co2 emissions from India,Asia and Latin America.

Just witness the burning that goes on across Thailand and the major air pollution it produces.