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

[Scott]

This topic is straying far off topic. Stick to the topic or posts will be deleted.

Thanks.

[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. Perceiving Chinese cities as an example of a bright future, is like seeing the Gobi Desert as a great place to breed whales.

[Scott]

UN scientists see grim future if no climate action

By Richard Ingham

Paris (AFP) - UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change, pointing to a future stalked by floods, drought, conflict and economic damage if carbon emissions go untamed.

A draft of their report, seen by AFP, is part of a massive overview by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), likely to shape policies and climate talks for years to come.

Scientists and government representatives will meet in Yokohama, Japan, from Tuesday to hammer out a 29-page summary. It will be unveiled with the full report on March 31.

http://news.yahoo.com/un-scientists-see-grim-future-no-action-035340842.html

[RickBradford]

UN scientists are set to deliver their darkest report yet on the impacts of climate change ....

The UN's IPCC WG2 report, referenced in this article, is not written by scientists, but politicians and their minions.

The IPCC process is as follows:

1) scientists deliver their assessment in a report;

2) there is then a multi-day meeting in which this draft document gets re-written/sanitized/torqued line-by-line by diplomats, politicians, and bureaucrats from over 100 countries, with Green NGOs in attendance.

3) a Summary for Policymakers (SPM, aka The Janet & John bit) is produced.

4) The scientific report is then rewritten so that it conforms to the SPM. (Changes other than grammatical or minor editorial changes made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter.- IPCC Procedures)

5) The whole mess is then leaked to friendly journalists, with the inevitable resultant scary headlines.

[Credo]

So much for keeping an open mind.

[NumbNut]

inevitable resultant scary headlines.

What, Like this?

IPCC Working Group II report: Scientists predict Australia will continue to get hotter

Maybe you scare easy Rick eh? Doesn't seem too scary to me... just telling it like it is.

And, on a sidebar to this main story, there's a brief summary titled 'The Rigorous Report Process' which I've copied below as it's worth quoting at length, to illustrate their methods, since you raise it as a point:-

The upcoming report includes 310 lead authors from 73 different nationalities.

Australian scientists are heavily involved as authors and reviewers of the Working Group reports.

Lesley Hughes, the lead author of the paper on Australasia, says Australia "punches above its weight".

"We are disproportionately a larger group than you might otherwise think based on our population in the IPCC authorship team," she said.

"We have a lot of scientists working on climate change issues and that is because we see Australia as being particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change."

The reports take up to five years to produce, undergoing a rigorous review process.

For example, 48,000 review comments were received on the upcoming report.

Professor Hughes says the process is not really a matter of achieving consensus, but rather is about evaluating the evidence.

The Australasia chapter alone has 1,000 references.

"They are certainly the largest reports ever produced on climate change and its associated risks but I think probably some of the most careful documents put together anywhere," she said.

"I rather naively thought that eight people and 25 pages to write, how long can it possibly take to write three-and-a-bit pages?

"The answer to that is about three years. There is much discussion about the weight of evidence so its a very long, detailed and careful process."

source

Edited March 23, 2014 by NumbNut

[Credo]

And I suppose that if it is a whitewash, as has been predicted, scientists will all keep their mouths shut?

[RickBradford]

Another question which bears asking is why, when the globe hasn't warmed for 17+ years, and the computer predictions continue to get worse, would the powers-that-be decide to tell us that we are even more certain to be facing catastrophe?

The measured reality says things aren't as bad as they were predicted to be, yet the rhetoric of catastrophe is cranked up even further. Why?

For the same reason, undoubtedly, that a losing gambler increases his bet in the hopes of recouping his losses. Sheer blind desperation.

So we now read more stuff like this in the mainstream media (UK Guardian).

The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word [other than 'denier'] will do.

Classy. Real classy. So much for reasoned debate.

[boomerangutang]

Rick Bradford writes: "The measured reality says things aren't as bad as they were predicted to be, yet the rhetoric of catastrophe is cranked up even further. Why?"

Wrong, most climate predictions are now showing to have been too conservative. In other words, seas are rising, Arctic and Greenland ice is melting, and temps rising more than many predictions from previous decades. You can quote me on that.

[RickBradford]

Wrong, most climate predictions are now showing to have been too conservative.

By definition, no prediction can be any more conservative than the reality of +/- 0 degrees which has been sustained for 17 years.

Temperature rise is what the alarmists based their case on -- more CO2, higher temperatures, as though CO2 were a control thermostat. They were proved wrong, and as the years go by, they get more and more wrong.

That's what we learn from observations about the climate – weather balloons, ice cores, satellites, corals, rocks, thermometers, stuff like that.

Climate catastrophe is inferred from computer programs, speculation about vested interests, oil companies, political ideology, and name-calling about Auschwitz.

It's up to every individual as to which method to believe in.

[boomerangutang]

when it's shown that glaciers are receding dramatically (compared to prior decades/centuries) and record high temps are being reported many places (and essentially no record lows) ....then it's reasonable to a deduce there's a trend of temps rising.

Edited March 25, 2014 by boomerangutang

[canuckamuck]

When butter gets up to about 32 degrees Celsius, it melts into clear yellow liquid.

If you bring butter out of the fridge and increase the room temperature until you get to 34 degrees; at some point you will observe melting. And even if you stop increasing the temperature at 34, the butter will continue to melt until it is all melted. To make the butter go back to opaque yellow. you will have to bring the temperature back down.

The earth got warmer - glaciers melted. The global temperature has not gone back down so they are still melting. It is the same concept with record temps, you will continue to get them here and there until the global temperature decreases significantly.

12,000 years ago, much of Europe would have been uninhabitable because of the climate. Aren't you glad you live at the beneficial segment of the climate curve?

[RickBradford]

record high temps are being reported many places (and essentially no record lows) ....then it's reasonable to a deduce there's a trend of temps rising.

Unfortunately, what you say is quite the opposite of the documented facts recorded by NOAA.

From their website, comparing US High Maximum Records v Low Minimum Records.

Last 7 days: High Max 19 Low Min 1259 (66-1 in favour of record lows)

Last 30 days: High Max 911 Low Min 2426 (2.5-1 in favour of record lows):

Last 365 days: High Max 17892 Low Min 24730 (1.5-1 in favour of record lows):

Year-to-date: High Max 2561 Low Min 5536 (2.5-1 in favour of record lows):

It is therefore, by your own argument, "reasonable to a deduce" there's a trend of temps falling.

[canman]

When butter gets up to about 32 degrees Celsius, it melts into clear yellow liquid.

If you bring butter out of the fridge and increase the room temperature until you get to 34 degrees; at some point you will observe melting. And even if you stop increasing the temperature at 34, the butter will continue to melt until it is all melted. To make the butter go back to opaque yellow. you will have to bring the temperature back down.

The earth got warmer - glaciers melted. The global temperature has not gone back down so they are still melting. It is the same concept with record temps, you will continue to get them here and there until the global temperature decreases significantly.

12,000 years ago, much of Europe would have been uninhabitable because of the climate. Aren't you glad you live at the beneficial segment of the climate curve?

Too right, this interglacial period has seen humanity thrive!

[Asiantravel]

Evidence for human-induced climate change grows as 2013 is revealed as the sixth-hottest on record

“There is no standstill in global warming. The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 per cent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans,” Dr Jarraud said.

“Levels of these greenhouse gases are at record levels, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable,” he warned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/evidence-for-humaninduced-climate-change-grows-as-2013-is-revealed-as-the-sixthhottest-on-record-9212971.html

[canuckamuck]

Evidence for human-induced climate change grows as 2013 is revealed as the sixth-hottest on record

“There is no standstill in global warming. The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 per cent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans,” Dr Jarraud said.

“Levels of these greenhouse gases are at record levels, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable,” he warned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/evidence-for-humaninduced-climate-change-grows-as-2013-is-revealed-as-the-sixthhottest-on-record-9212971.html

If some athlete tried to break his personal best for 17 years, I doubt he would brag about his 6th closest result. And everyone would assume that his best years are behind him.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Stay on topic and keep it civil.

[boomerangutang]

Evidence for human-induced climate change grows as 2013 is revealed as the sixth-hottest on record

“There is no standstill in global warming. The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 per cent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans,” Dr Jarraud said.

“Levels of these greenhouse gases are at record levels, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable,” he warned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/evidence-for-humaninduced-climate-change-grows-as-2013-is-revealed-as-the-sixthhottest-on-record-9212971.html

If some athlete tried to break his personal best for 17 years, I doubt he would brag about his 6th closest result. And everyone would assume that his best years are behind him.

The 'sixth highest', when taken in the perspective of many 'highest' temp readings in recent decades, is significant - and points to a trend of record high temps. The scientific evidence is very strong - indicating many 'highest ever recorded' temp readings in recent decades - in many places: Europe, N. America, S.America, Australia, and others.

To take your 'athlete' analogy: If an athlete had a string of record 'best times' stretching over the past 17 years, then he/she would be glad about that (if their competitive career spanned a lot longer than 17 years). If the most recent was 6th highest, ....then that would still be significant in the overall pattern of better times - compared to earlier results.

[canuckamuck]

You keep assuming that since temperatures in the last 30 years have all been at the top of the scale from the last 200 years, that this is significant in regards to a human altered climate. But as you know, higher global temperatures are not unprecedented, and these are not all time records.

It is necessary that the highest temperatures are recorded at the high end of the scale and all of the records will be set when global temperatures are high. It is like having a record crop in a year when all the other farmers also had good crops. It is to be expected.

I assume next year will have some records too, maybe there will be records for the next 50 years or so. It doesn't prove what you think it proves.

[RickBradford]

Well, this 'athlete' set his PB as much as 80 years ago, in 1934, with the three next bests in 1921, 1931 and 1953. In 1998, the temperature anomaly reached +0.549C, still half a degree short of the PB and only 5th overall.

James 'Homer' Hansen at NASA GISS didn't like these figures, so he did what every good alarmist learns to do -- he doctored the data. Voila! 1998 becomes the new hottest year, and the global catastrophe narrative is rescued. Hurrah!

[attrayant]

James 'Homer' Hansen at NASA GISS didn't like these figures, so he did what every good alarmist learns to do -- he doctored the data. Voila! 1998 becomes the new hottest year, and the global catastrophe narrative is rescued. Hurrah!

I have a quandary for you. Imagine you're a scientist charged with documenting surface temperatures. But there's a problem: temperature data collected from ground stations disagrees with data reported by satellites. What do you do? Ignore one of the data sets? Take an average value? Of course not - both of those options are scientifically dishonest. Scientific integrity requires that you find the cause of the disagreement and correct for it.

This has already been explained to you several pages back:

Hansen, et al, noticed that satellite's orbits had decayed and this was responsible for some erroneous readings that disagreed with actual measured readings on the ground. Upon seeing this discrepancy, he did what any good scientist learns to do -- he makes a correction to the data. Calling this process "doctoring the data" is simply incorrect. Doctoring means falsifying data in order to make it agree with desired results. What Hansen did was make a correction to a data set that was known to be in error (that means getting RID of the false data, which is the opposite of falsifying data). When the correction was made to the satellites' orbits, the newly reported data began to agree with measurements taken on the ground.

If you are conducting an experiment, and you find one set of measurements to be at odds with another, what would you do? Wouldn't you look for the discrepancy and correct for it? You're acting as though this is some nefarious deed, when it's a simple matter of science correcting itself. Data that is known to be in error is discarded in favor of good data. And what constitutes good and bad data? No - not the data we have a personal attachment to, but the data we (and others) can confirm with other measurements and repeat trials. He didn't discard the data because he didn't like it, he discarded it because it was objectively wrong. Are you suggesting that he should have kept the data that he knew to be erroneous?

What if (caution: hypothetical) satellites tomorrow report temperatures on the ground in Australia to be 1000°? Of course we know that's wrong. How do we know? Because weather stations on the ground are reporting different numbers. What should we do? Should we just accept that and record it in our data journals? Or should we look for the source of the error and correct for it (or in your words, "doctor the data")? I have a sneaking suspicion you'd be in favor of finding out why those wacky numbers were being reported, and you'd be in favor of making a correction.

And where did you get that Hansen's middle name is Homer? It's Edward.

Edited March 26, 2014 by attrayant

[RickBradford]

Scientific integrity requires that you find the cause of the disagreement and correct for it.

Indeed it does.

But when every data correction moves the data unerringly in the direction of making recent global warming appear more serious, then people with enough intelligence to have an active BS meter begin to suspect that the changes were made less from scientific integrity and more from political activism and personal expediency.

[chuckd]

Talking about "high" temperatures....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coldest October-March In The US In 102 Years

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/coldest-october-march-in-the-us-in-102-years/

Edited March 26, 2014 by chuckd

[NumbNut]

then people with enough intelligence to have an active BS meter

Oh, the irony...

[cooked]

Clutching at straws. For Buddha's sake close this stupid thread.

[boomerangutang]

I just read in a recent Nat'l Geographic how indigenous people in Canada's Yukon Territory are having to deal with warming trends - warmer than earlier years. Banks along rivers which had traditionally frozen in winter, were now not freezing. Tundra which had traditionally stayed frozen until their brief summer, was thawing out weeks earlier. There are many such stories indicating warming trends. ....and these are from people who are at the scene. They're not making these observations up. They're lives and livelihoods are entwined with weather cycles. None of them are saying things are generally getting colder. Instead, they're all saying things are generally getting warmer, and that syncs with data scientists are garnering.

[canuckamuck]

It's warmer, it happens.

Edited March 26, 2014 by canuckamuck

[3NUMBAS]

http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2014/03/26/heatwaves-to-become-normal-by-2040s-says-the-met-office/

Heatwaves to become normal by 2040s, says the Met Office

Heatwaves to become normal by 2040s, says the Met Office

Wednesday, March 26th, 2014 By Ilaria Bertini

[RickBradford]

How much has Global Warming raised temperatures near you?

Not much if you are in the US, which has just gone through its coldest winter in over 100 years.

Not much global warming in that graph, but hey, it's only data, which will be pointedly ignored by the alarmists.

[chuckd]

It is now official. The "warming" lunatics have taken over the asylum.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House looks to regulate cow flatulence as part of climate agenda

2:50 PM 03/28/2014

Michael Bastasch

As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations.

This comes despite falling methane emission levels across the economy since 1990.

The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions — which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz2xJuVjk9G