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

[Steely Dan]

More frozen egg on face rations for the warmists here.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/global-warming-lecture-cancelled-due-to-unexpected-blizzard/

Warmists claim that they can predict that the world will end because too many people drive to work, yet they’re caught by surprise every time there’s a blizzard.The NOAA forecast of a warm winter left many cities unprepared for the massive snowfalls. And it’s no better in Canada, where the warmists tell us that they can predict what the weather will be like in 2140 only to have their lectures canceled by an unexpected blizzard.

[canman]

As I sit here in Singapore breathing in the smoke filled air, smoke generated by burning vast tracts of jungle in Indonesia and Malaysia to plant palm oil to ship to europe to make bio fuel to give the loony left a warm fuzzy feeling that they are good citizens of Gia, I can't help but wonder; what exactly is the issue with using oil??

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

[Asiantravel]

So how do the sceptics and nonbelievers of global warming explain this?

Fears of faster rising global sea levels as 'stable' Greenland ice sheet starts to melt

Global sea levels may rise faster than anticipated due to a rapid melting of the north-east corner of the Greenland ice sheet, according to scientists. This was widely considered to be cold and stable.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fears-of-faster-rising-global-sea-levels-as-stable-greenland-ice-sheet-starts-to-melt-9195769.html

[snarky66]

Yet the fact remains that nearly 40 years later, the impending Ice Age failed to materialize.

Ditto the global "melt"

Question. Are these climate change weenies shivering under the covers unable to sleep paralyzed with fear over rising sea levels? The smart ones are making billions of $ off the lemmings.

[3NUMBAS]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/17/nasa-funded-study-says-modern-society-doomed-dodo/

Modern industrialized society is like the dodo bird — doomed and headed toward extinction, said a new study funded by NASA. Report authors took that finding and concluded: The only way to keep the world up and running is to redistribute resources.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/17/nasa-funded-study-says-modern-society-doomed-dodo/#ixzz2wEvKjaXe

[canuckamuck]

Well it is no surprise to see calls for redistribution of wealth. This is what the left always believes to be the answer. Sadly, history shows us that this approach inevitably leads to greater violation of rights, greater disparity between the working and the controlling class, and a total breakdown of the economy.

Anyways this has nothing to do with warming. This is about pollution, population, and misuse of resources. If the planet was/is cooling then the situation would be even worse.

[RickBradford]

So how do the sceptics and nonbelievers of global warming explain this?

Any "explanation" would have to focus on the mindset of the hysterical journalists who hyped up this non-event.

Greenland’s Ice Loss Triples and Raises Global Warming Awareness

Fears of faster rising global sea levels as ‘stable’ Greenland ice sheet starts to melt

Greenland’s ice loss nearly tripled in a decade

Regional warming triggers sustained mass loss in Northeast Greenland ice sheet

Greenland Ice Sheet Loses Its Last Grip

Because the scientific study which these idiotic articles quote is about "regional warming" -- it's right there in the title.

The sea in the small area in question has actually cooled over the past 35 years, and the pattern of events at that site shows no link to catastrophic oil-funded denialist man-made warming.

Read the scientific study, compare it with the shrill wailing of the media, and you too will probably become a skeptic.

[canman]

So how do the sceptics and nonbelievers of global warming explain this?

Fears of faster rising global sea levels as 'stable' Greenland ice sheet starts to melt

Global sea levels may rise faster than anticipated due to a rapid melting of the north-east corner of the Greenland ice sheet, according to scientists. This was widely considered to be cold and stable.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fears-of-faster-rising-global-sea-levels-as-stable-greenland-ice-sheet-starts-to-melt-9195769.html

So how do the warmists explain this?

The Coming of a New Ice Age

CHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age.

http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm

[h90]

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.

The only good thing I see in the CO2 discussion is that we may use less oil from arab countries.

But on the other hand we could use coal to produce gasoline...but we don't do it...China does, South Africa does.

[midas]

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.

The only good thing I see in the CO2 discussion is that we may use less oil from arab countries.

But on the other hand we could use coal to produce gasoline...but we don't do it...China does, South Africa does.

why do people want to have kids when we are leaving behind such a dreadful legacy for them ?

[FiftyTwo]

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.

The only good thing I see in the CO2 discussion is that we may use less oil from arab countries.

But on the other hand we could use coal to produce gasoline...but we don't do it...China does, South Africa does.

why do people want to have kids when we are leaving behind such a dreadful legacy for them ?

World food production at an all time high.

Peace has broken out all over the world.

Technology and health care at an all time high.

What 'dreadful legacy' do you see?

[midas]

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.

The only good thing I see in the CO2 discussion is that we may use less oil from arab countries.

But on the other hand we could use coal to produce gasoline...but we don't do it...China does, South Africa does.

why do people want to have kids when we are leaving behind such a dreadful legacy for them ?

World food production at an all time high.

Peace has broken out all over the world.

Technology and health care at an all time high.

What 'dreadful legacy' do you see?

LOL, you must be joking?

Do you honestly see a bright future for future generations? In which parts of the globe do you see peace breaking out?

The record food production you refer to comes at an incredible cost such as the leaching of dangerous fertilisers like Anhydrous ammonia and worse into our system.

And apart from the subject of this thread, there is at least $53 trillion of debt they will inherit (which is still growing rapidly) and the consequences to the globe of an incredibly unstable Fukushima nuclear plant that will will be bleeding radiation into the Pacific for next 100 years.

Edited March 18, 2014 by midas

[RickBradford]

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a new climate report, called WG2, out soon, which has been leaked to journalists worldwide.

The Independent (UK) reports its conclusions thus: "Official prophecy of doom: Global warming will cause widespread conflict, displace millions of people and devastate the global economy."

This nonsense was so over-the-top outrageous that one of the report's authors (Richard Betts of the UK Met Office) felt compelled to reply:

I'm one of the authors of the IPCC WG2 report, and I think this article by the Independent is highly irresponsible, especially the headline.

The author of this article has chosen some juicy bits which back up the "climate doom" meme, but ignored other information. The headline writer has then done the same with the original article to come up with the headline of catastrophe.

They've also completely ignored all the important discussion in the report on adaptating to climate change and increasing resilience.

The upshot is a very biased, alarmist headline.

This is a classic 'global warming' scenario. The scientists are doing their best to make sense of the impossibly complex climate system, yet most people only get to hear what all the big media outlets such as the BBC, ABC, NYT want to showcase, which is almost always "progressive" alarmist rubbish.

As Betts went on to say, shoddy journalism like this damages the credibility of the entire report.

I strongly encourage readers to read the actual report for themselves, and not rely on journalists who just want to get a scary headline.

In other words, don't believe everything you read in the newspapers.

[boomerangutang]

My question was, again, why have the last seven out of ten years been the hottest years in Oz since records began. I'm all ears Rick.

Unfortunately, that last part seems to be true.

If you really cannot understand what I posted before, which is that a graph sloping upwards over time will inevitably show higher values in the recent past than it did in the distant past, then we really have nothing to discuss.

If you lived in a neighborhood, and the average number of murders increased by one or two annually, you might just find a way to accept it as part of increasing population density. However, if the average number of murders increased by four or more each year, in the past 10 years, then you'd have cause to sit up and notice.

That's an analogy for the spiking temperature rises in Australia and other regions of the globe in the past 30 years. No one is saying that temperatures aren't gradually increasing from the time of the most recent ice age. What realists are saying is temps are increasing dramatically in recent decades, when compared to averages of preceding centuries.

Warmists claim that they can predict that the world will end because too many people drive to work, yet theyre caught by surprise every time theres a blizzard.

Chicken Little shouted "The sky is falling!" but that's just a cartoon. Similarly, anyone saying that "Warmists claim that they can predict that the world will end..." is making a cartoon out of themselves. You can tell Deniers are losing their argumentents, when they lower themselves to ever more shrill and ridiculous claims.

Edited March 20, 2014 by boomerangutang

[midas]

The only good thing I see in the CO2 discussion is that we may use less oil from arab countries.

But on the other hand we could use coal to produce gasoline...but we don't do it...China does, South Africa does.

why do people want to have kids when we are leaving behind such a dreadful legacy for them ?

World food production at an all time high.

Peace has broken out all over the world.

Technology and health care at an all time high.

What 'dreadful legacy' do you see?

LOL, you must be joking?

Do you honestly see a bright future for future generations? In which parts of the globe do you see peace breaking out?

The record food production you refer to comes at an incredible cost such as the leaching of dangerous fertilisers like Anhydrous ammonia and worse into our system.

And apart from the subject of this thread, there is at least $53 trillion of debt they will inherit (which is still growing rapidly) and the consequences to the globe of an incredibly unstable Fukushima nuclear plant that will will be bleeding radiation into the Pacific for next 100 years.

Oh and I forgot FiftyTwo,another problem that the future generations are going to have to find a way to deal with - which is the subject of another new thread on Thai visa

and I will go even further by saying that our unabated breeding will just compound the problem of climate change and all these other problems.

Why do we believe we should be the only species on this planet that doesn't need limitations on its breeding?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/712325-mounting-trash-becoming-a-national-worry-thai-pcd/

Edited March 20, 2014 by midas

[RickBradford]

What realists are saying is temps are increasing dramatically in recent decades, when compared to averages of preceding centuries.

You must have a very odd definition of 'realists' - a Greenpeace definition, perhaps.

Even the NOAA disagrees with you -- the graph below shows that warming from 1914 to 1963 was greater than for 1964 to 2013 -- the last two consecutive 50-year periods. And that despite a vastly greater rise in CO2 levels over the latter period.

There are literally thousands of scientific papers which show faster rates of warming in the past, whether you look at centuries, millennia or even longer time scales.

Here are two other 51-year periods - - drawn to the same scale. One is from 1895-1946, the other from 1957-2008. Which is which?

One day, the rank-and-file climate alarmists will wake up to the fact that they were sold a pup, but these things always take time.

[attrayant]

Even the NOAA disagrees with you -- the graph below shows that warming from 1914 to 1963 was greater than for 1964 to 2013 -- the last two consecutive 50-year periods. And that despite a vastly greater rise in CO2 levels over the latter period.

You imply that the graphic comes from NOAA, however a reverse image search shows this graphic appearing only on denial sites. If you did, in fact, get this image (and the accompanying conclusion) from NOAA, please provide the appropriate link.

There are literally thousands of scientific papers which show faster rates of warming in the past, whether you look at centuries, millennia or even longer time scales.

And the conclusion you've left us to draw is... that we shouldn't be worried about the current trend because things have been much worse in the past? I'm not sure I find that comforting.

Here are two other 51-year periods - - drawn to the same scale. One is from 1895-1946, the other from 1957-2008. Which is which?

I had to go digging for this graphic as well, and true to form, it seems to come only from sites that specialize in denial. I'm not sure what the purpose of removing the common frame of reference is (aside from trying to obfuscate). You (or the site you lifted this graphic from) have removed a needed frame of reference and then asked us to make a comparison. And of course, left to their own devices, people are naturally going to draw conclusions from this. What's the point of that? How does removing information from a graphic help us make better decisions? I can fabricate almost any desired comparison by placing two images side-by-side and offsetting only one of them from a common reference point.

In case anyone else felt there was something fishy about that graphic, here's the same data with the common reference point added back in:

Strangely enough, when the data is provided along with relevant reference points, it becomes easier to make informed decisions.

[RickBradford]

I'm not sure what the purpose of removing the common frame of reference is

True to form, as you would say, you have completely missed the point.

The whole point of the question posed by Boomer was to do with rates of increase in temperatures, not absolute values. Increases, slopes, gradients, inclines, trends. I hope you are able to appreciate the difference.

These trends , the poster believed, were "rapidly increasing". These two graphs, placed side-by-side to examine trends, shows that this statement is simply not true. The two graphs, showing increases, slopes, gradients, inclines, trends are virtually indistinguishable, and hence rebut the constant media wailing that "recent warming is unprecedented."

[NumbNut]

True to form, as you would say, you have completely missed the point.

But I thought that was your goal Rick, so people DO miss the point... I must be missing something here... kinda like YOU are.

The last 10 months have been abnormally warm across Australia and we’ve seen a notable lack of unusually cold weather this winter. Are we heading for the hottest year on record?

The more significant records for this period include:

• Australia’s hottest day on record

• Australia’s hottest week on record

• Australia’s hottest month on record

• Australia’s hottest summer on record

• Australia’s hottest September to June (10 months) on record

A feature of the last 10 months has been the persistence of unusually warm temperatures. Every calendar month since September 2012 has had temperatures 0.5°C or more above normal. The result has been a national mean temperature anomaly of +1.03°C for the past 10 months, well ahead of the previous record of +0.94 °C set in 1997-98.

Source

Edited March 21, 2014 by Scott
chart edited out

[boomerangutang]

"recent warming is unprecedented."

We got the quote we wanted from Bradford. ha ha.

Seriously though, bunches of data and graphs show 'record high' temperatures in many places around the globe. I and others have posted graphs on this (and prior) threads. It's getting tiring. It's like the 'Rumble in The Jungle' boxing match between Muhammed Ali / George Foreman in Zaire. In that fight, Ali won by hanging on the ropes and taking an onslaught of punches by Foreman. Foreman, essentially tired himself out by punching his opponent. I'm tired. Maybe deniers will win the argument, and we can keep burning fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow, while Big Oil bosses smile benevolently from their air-conditioned boardrooms. Cities will adjust to yellow skies and seas won't rise more than a few cm. Deserts won't enlarge, and we will always have pretty photos of forests and wild beasts to look at in National Geographic's mags and web site.

[boomerangutang]

Incidentally, I just was a week in SW US, in southern Utah.

Skies are egg-shell blue. There's no flipped out severe winter (that's east coast US). I was walking around some National Parks shirtless. When the sun rises there, it's yellow. When it sets, it's yellow. I don't think anywhere in Asia has seen a yellow sun from horizon to horizon (except in the Himalayas) since, .....19th century? Oh, and you'll be glad to know, my sinuses cleared up.

Someone earlier said something to the effect: rivers and lakes have never been places to drink from. Not so. In some farang lands, a person can still drink from rivers, close to their source. At Zion National Park, there are old brass faucets which dispense drinking water - for filling bottles - which comes from mountain streams,untreated. Another thing you won't likely find in Asia.

Some things I didn't see along the paths I trekked: trash nor ants. A full week went by without hearing a rooster crow, and without a temple song playing loud on a tape loop (which I get twice/day in my Thai village, for 20 minutes each session). It reminded me that there is something more dear than Sangha or Nationhood or Royalty or family. Namely: pristine nature.

[canuckamuck]

If people put the effort into increasing the public awareness of litter and pollution, and what it does to tarnish the image of a nation (how much face does Thailand lose when tourists swim in trash) that would be the beginning of some real environmental change. Although North America has a lot of industrialization, The environment is much cleaner and has many protections which are supported and enforced by the citizens. I don't know about Europe or Australia because I have never been, but I assume it is much the same. To me this is a big distinction between the first and third world. People with less disposable income do not care, and corrupt governments do not care. It takes a healthy middle class to get the house in order.

[Scott]

A chart with an oversized graphic has been removed. Feel free to repost, if you can adjust the size. Oversized graphics mess up the formatting on some browsers.

[RickBradford]

... we can keep burning fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow, while Big Oil bosses smile benevolently from their air-conditioned boardrooms.

Oh, not the old fat-cat-Big-Oil-denier yarn again. That's truly tiring. I guess you're an NYT reader.

(New York Times, Sunday Review, Feb 23, 2014)

Burning fossil fuels is the fastest way to lift the world's poor to a tolerable living standard (or would be, if the Green/Left activists would get out of the way). Raising people's living standards inevitably causes them to have less children, and thus eases the burden of global overpopulation.

The logic is perfectly straightforward, which is probably why the Green/Left can't or won't understand it.

Any true environmentalist supports curbing the rise in the earth's population, so they should equally support the development of poor countries through the supply of cheap, affordable energy. And that, right now, means fossil fuels.

[boomerangutang]

Another way to lessen overpopulation is education, at least for earlier/formative years. Girls with some education are less likely to pop out a string of kids. Some of those young women might even use contraceptives, even though their husbands would fly in to rages if they found out. The #1 best thing people can do to try and heal an ailing planet: HAVE LESS KIDS. I got my tubes tied in my early 30's. By that time, I had had 2 kids and caused at least 4 abortions. If I hadn't had a vasectomy, I might have sired a half dozen more kids by now, particularly while being in Thailand for the past 16 years - where every Asian g.f. has been very determined to make a baby with me (I'm farang, tall, blonde, and they think all farang are rich {I'm not} which in their girlish minds translates to plush security for their families).

One Burmese g.f. came right out and said it, after we'd been dating for a few months: "We can't stay together if you can't make a baby. How am I going to be supported when I get old?" ....her exact words.

[RickBradford]

Another way to lessen overpopulation is education, at least for earlier/formative years. Girls with some education are less likely to pop out a string of kids.

Exactly. Education goes hand in hand with development.

To be able to have a functioning education system, you need to have basic infrastructure, including affordable and reliable electricity.

Time and again it has been shown that when one of these remote villages in Africa or Asia gets basic electricity, the results are better-educated children, better health, more wealth, and less children -- in short, development.

It is such a pity that the Green/Left so vigorously opposes such development.

[boomerangutang]

Another way to lessen overpopulation is education, at least for earlier/formative years. Girls with some education are less likely to pop out a string of kids.

Exactly. Education goes hand in hand with development.

To be able to have a functioning education system, you need to have basic infrastructure, including affordable and reliable electricity.

Time and again it has been shown that when one of these remote villages in Africa or Asia gets basic electricity, the results are better-educated children, better health, more wealth, and less children -- in short, development.

It is such a pity that the Green/Left so vigorously opposes such development.

You were going ok, until the last sentence. Greenies are in favor of alternative, clean energy. In remote parts of Africa, that would be solar or hydro or wind. Not yet more fossil fuel burning. Closer to home; Mae Hong Song and Pai region of western Thailand has at least three different lines of thick wires strung over the hundreds of hills - from Central Thailand. That's hundreds of Km of thick wires, with the attendant power poles going to those relatively small towns. Was there any consideration for alternative power generation closer to those towns? Because this is Thailand, it's v. doubtful. There's even thermal (power generation) potential near those towns, but that also, was not considered.

Back to Africa: there are wars going on in central parts, as we speak, which are the bloodiest since WWII (that would make them bloodier than Korea or VN). When there's so much turmoil and suffering, the environment and wildlife are also casualties. Fossil fuel power plants might help a bit, but it's nowhere near top priority for what those people need - to improve their lives.

Added electricity implies that civilizations get better as more electricity becomes available. Exacerbated problems in cities worldwide prove that's untrue. More important would be to get people to conserve and USE LESS OF THE STUFF - and make efforts to switch to alternative clean energy. Nuclear looked plausible, until it was shown, even to its boosters, to be insanely expensive in the wider perspective. Q: What are cumulative damage costs for Chernobyl or Fukushima? Answer: through the roof, too high to tally. How can you put a price-tag on the destruction of an entire once-habitable region or decades of pollution for the Pacific Ocean?

[RickBradford]

Greenies are in favor of alternative, clean energy.

Poor people don't need alternative energy, they need real energy, to create real development, not some paternalistic feel-good Greenie fantasy about wind turbines.

Added electricity implies that civilizations get better as more electricity becomes available. Exacerbated problems in cities worldwide prove that's untrue.

It would be more accurate to say that cities are a victim of their own success. Rural-urban migration is responsible for the biggest redistribution of populations ever seen. People flock to cities because the opportunities and wealth generated (in part by infrastructure based on electricity) offer a compelling alternative to grubbing in the dirt out in the boonies. Over 300 million Chinese have voted with their feet and gone to the cities in recent decades -- they may not be happier, but they're certainly richer.

Everyone craves development (except the Greenies, who have already enjoyed its benefits) and development requires real, affordable, reliable energy.

[boomerangutang]

Most Chinese cities are depressing and dirty. Some are nearly devoid of people. Others have masses of dirt poor trying to eke out an existence near the 3% flaunting their ostentatious riches. Chinese think rural existence is low class, similar to how Thais think dark skin is low class. China would like to have cities melding in to each other from border to border - covering every possible sq.Km. Chinese can't perceive of rural existence as wholesome, healthy and fulfilling. They're too fixated on amassing money, and cities are the only places where (they think) a person can get rich. If a person uses Chinese cities as an example of a bright future, that person has a warped outlook.