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

[boomerangutang]

Boomerang's responses in orange.....

The Telegraph's position accurately reflects what most skeptics believe, not what the rabid Green/Left has convinced itself that skeptics believe.

..... we believe that the climate is changing,...

Of course it is

I agree, climate is always changing. That's why I like the original term 'global warming'

... that the reason for that change includes human activity .....

Of course it does. To what extent, is the question, and the answer is Not Much

Uh oh, be careful RB. In many earlier posts you claimed it was presumptuous to say that human activity had any effect on climate.

... but that human ingenuity and adaptability should not be ignored ...

Indeed. Our species' ability to adapt is one of its strongest points.

Agreed. Solar and other types of clean alternative energy can be a good adaptation, as with phasing out of fossil fuels.

... in favour of economically damaging prescriptions."

Damaging? Try catastrophic, cataclysmic and irreversible. But trashing the economy is what the Green/Left has always been after.

Sure. Greens and Leftists are all about trashing the economy (I jest, of course).

Yes, the Global Warming debate is over, and not in the way you hoped.

Yes there will be those who will quixotically insist that GW is not happening, and even if it is, it's a waste of time and resources to try and do anything which might improve the situation.

[boomerangutang]

Always follow the Dollar signs. It would seem the cost of $1 Billion per day in 2012 will now be raised to $1.27 Billion per day.

Greed has no limits.

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

Buried in UN Report: $100 Billion More Needed to Adapt to ‘Global Warming’

March 31, 2014 - 5:08 PM

By Barbara Hollingsworth

(CNSNews.com) – The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest report estimates it will cost developed nations an additional $100 billion each year to help poorer countries adapt to the devastating effects of “unequivocal” global warming, including food shortages, infrastructure breakdown, and civil violence.

But that figure was deleted from the report’s executive summary after industrialized nations, including the United States, objected to the high price tag. (See IPCC Summary.pdf)

“The $100 billion figure, though included in the 2,500-page main report, was removed from a 48-page executive summary to be read by the world’s top political leaders,” the New York Times reported. “It was among the most significant changes made as the summary underwent final review during a dayslong editing session in Yokohama [Japan]” where it was released Monday.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/buried-un-report-100-billion-more-needed-adapt-global-warming#sthash.RYEcmOEQ.dpuf

Nobody knows how much will get spent. Money is always wasted, particularly by governments. Businessmen are great wasters of money also. Someone I know, who is captain of a pleasure boat, said the petrol bill for just 9 days cruising around southern Burma, with 5 clients, was $37,000. However, no matter how many billions is spent on trying to avoid GW (if that's even partially possible) .... is not money burnt or sent down a dark hole. It goes to other businesses and people. It still doesn't say that money won't be ruefully wasted. Even in an election, when we hear about hundreds of millions of dollars spent - that money doesn't go through a shredder. It's money spent on products and services. And again, governments and politicians are excellent at wasting money, so any time I hear of those clowns spending money, I know they will over spend and chuck it around foolishly.

True story: I had a friend who ran a backhoe. One day, he spent 6.5 hours hours digging a long ditch for a government contract. An hour before quitting time, the foreman realized they wouldn't finish the job for that day, and because they didn't have fencing and were worried someone or their pet might fall in to the ditch, the foreman directed the backhoe operator to quickly backfill the entire ditch - which he did. .....and then went to digging it out the next day. That's government.

[RickBradford]

Sure. Greens and Leftists are all about trashing the economy (I jest, of course).

You may jest, but the prominent Green/Left doesn't.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director

---

"We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." Paul Elrich, Stanford University biologist and Advisor to Albert Gore

---

"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism." Judi Barri of Earth First!

---

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." - Ottmar Edenhoffer, UN IPCC official.

The last quote is of a piece with the statement made recently by EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard. Both are saying, essentially: "We don't care that temperatures haven't moved in over 17 years; we want to take money from poor people in rich countries and give it to rich people in poor countries, to show how noble and caring we are."

Nothing to do with "saving the planet"; all to do with their personal vanity projects.

[canman]

As the evidence mounts that climate change is not the earth ending catastrophe which the Al Gore acolytes wish to believe; I suspect we will see more and more desperate tactics from the left such as this head line:

Crackdown ordered on climate-change sceptics: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece

[RickBradford]

^^

It has always been the SOP of the Green/Left to shut down debate, as they know they can never win in the marketplace of facts or ideas.

And the weaker the climate fundamentalists' case becomes, the more the calls for 'crackdowns' on skeptics, their imprisonment, branding, gassing and outright execution will increase.

With temperatures flat for over 17 years, they have tweaked the theory of the "settled science" of catastrophic climate change so that you might expect to see any or all of the following cited as "proof" of global warming:

* Warm places getting warmer

* Warm places getting colder

* Cold places getting warmer

* Cold places getting colder

* Dry places getting drier

* Dry places getting wetter

* Wet places getting dryer

* Wet places getting wetter

* Unchanged places getting unchanged-er

Luckily, most of the people who count have already seen through their drivel, and despite the ever more shrill rhetoric, within two years or so, the climate catastrophe will have blown away like a dried-up chicken turd.

Then it will be time to count the cost, both in money and lives, of this profoundly anti-human crusade.

[boomerangutang]

Instead of jumping all over the place while speculating what others may say - with the idea of shooting it all down.....

Here's what's happening:

The Earth is getting warmer. Perhaps not catastrophically, but slowly. That warming affects weather in some ways: Hurricanes will get more severe, droughts and flooding will probably also get more severe. When there's greater average warming, two basic things happen; Ice thaws, and sea levels rise. Again, it may not be severe right now. But seemingly small incremental changes, can add up, and lead to significant changes, with dire effects.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which published its latest report on March 31st, dealt with 73,000 published works. It clear that deniers will keep denying anything is awry, but the overwhelming majority of scientists studying this stuff, find there is reason to be concerned.

Deniers have no choice but to continue to deny there's any real concern. There is no evidence which will sway them from that fixation. So be it. It's easy to turn away and retreat in to one's shell. Meanwhile; habitat will continue to decrease, and people will face increased challenges to survive. The people posting on T.Visa are mostly pretty comfortable with their income and living conditions. Yet we represent a small portion of the types of living conditions worldwide. Those who try to eke out a living each day they're the majority. And that's just people, one species. I care as much or more for other species, particularly those which have become adversely affected by human actions. How much natural habitat is taken out each day by humans? Each human, on average, releases a ton of CO2/annually. If you think CO2 is completely benign, then for you, the whole issue is a great big 'so what.'

Pop Quiz: What causes the most earth movement on Earth?

>>> earthquakes, landslides?

>>> tides?

>>> people?

>>> volcanoes?

Answer: people.

Who says people are too insignificant to have any effect on Earth or its weather? Collectively, we have a big effect.

Just in my small city of Chiang Rai, people activity has leveled hundreds of acres of forest, just in the past 12 months. Every day, more tracts of what were once forests or rice paddies or fallow weed fields - are turning in to clay flatland - getting ready for endless added people units - houses, apartments, malls, parking lots, etc. Chiang Rai is doubling in size each 5 years, and it's just one of a million small cities. In China it's worse, because everything they do there is giant scale. They use 1/3 of all the concrete on the planet.

Edited April 4, 2014 by boomerangutang

[RickBradford]

The Earth is getting warmer. Perhaps not catastrophically, but slowly.

Congratulations, you've just outed yourself as a "denier".

It is precisely the notion of "catastrophic" global warming which is the bedrock of the climate fundamentalists' constant refrain that "we must act now" or that "we have 100 months left to save the world" and "human race will be extinct by 2030" or "irreversible tipping points" and all the rest.

If there's no catastrophe, then there's no sense in the statement "There are only two solutions - either capitalism dies, or Mother Earth dies" (Evo Morales), nor is there any reason to beggar the world by cutting down carbon dioxide emissions by 80% before 2050.

If you believe in imminent climate catastrophe, and the immediate need to shut down industry and capitalism worldwide, then you are a noble and caring individual, bathed in Gaia's golden light.

If you don't, you're a denier. Welcome to the club.

[boomerangutang]

Were that everything fell neatly in to black and white cubicles. Alas, it's complicated.
When I say there's warming trend, "perhaps not catastrophically, but slowly" ....those are subjective words. A catastrophic warming trend might be half a degree per year. 'slow' temp rise might be half a degree per decade. Yet even that half degree per decade can add up to produce dire changes - particularly for humans, who are not a hardy species, and who are affected by even slight changes in climate.

Earth Warming Faster Than Expected / 25 March 2012 1:05 pm

By 2050, global average temperature could be between 1.4°C and 3°C warmer than it was just a couple of decades ago, according to a new study that seeks to address the largest sources of uncertainty in current climate models. That's substantially higher than estimates produced by other climate analyses, suggesting that Earth's climate could warm much more quickly than previously thought.

source

On a lighter note: anyone familiar with Thais knows that there's an ideal median temperature for them. If it's 1 degree cooler than that, they'll wrap their arms around their bodies and say 'nao, nao' while shaking their heads amicably, as if anyone listening would naturally agree. Similarly, if the temp is 1 degree warmer than the ideal median, they'll claim 'ron, ron,' and run to the nearest air conditioned place. they'll even wrap their dogs in sweaters on those 1 degree cooler-than-median days.

[boomerangutang]

National Geographic, in its Dec. 2012 issue has a feature article on CO2 and Methane and gas emitted by fracking. One little graph on page 98 caught my attention, in how it addresses what some deniers on this thread have claimed: "How can this one species, have any real effect on climate for this large planet? How presumptuous to think the people can affect climate!"

For just Methane gas emissions, which have been shown to be 8 to 20 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2:

59% of global methane emissions are human influenced. Here's how the chart breaks down:

41% of methane emissions are natural, mostly emitted from wetlands.

Of the 59% Which are man-influenced, 21% are farmed animals (yes, mostly cow farts), 23% are fossil fuel extraction and waste disposal. 5% coal mining (not necessarily coal burning, just mining the stuff), and 6% of global methane emissions come from growing just one single food crop. Can you guess which one? It's rice.

So, do deniers still insist that people are too small an entity to effect global weather? Note: methane is just one piece of the puzzle.

[3NUMBAS]

its now getting late in the day to do anything ...

quote

BERLIN — Delivering the latest stark news about climate change on Sunday, a United Nations panel warned that governments are not doing enough to avert profound risks in coming decades. But the experts found a silver lining: Not only is there still time to head off the worst, but the political will to do so seems to be rising around the world.

In a report unveiled here, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that decades of foot-dragging by political leaders had propelled humanity into a critical situation, with greenhouse emissions rising faster than ever.

While it remains technically possible to keep planetary warming to a tolerable level, only an intensive push over the next 15 years to bring those emissions under control can achieve the goal, the committee found.

“We cannot afford to lose another decade,” said Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chairman of the committee that wrote the report. “If we lose another decade, it becomes extremely costly to achieve climate stabilization.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/14/science/earth/un-climate-panel-warns-speedier-action-is-needed-to-avert-disaster.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

SOURCE:The New York Times

Edited April 14, 2014 by Rimmer
Fair Use

[canuckamuck]

Most people get over of being afraid of the boogeyman by the time they're 10.

This is all the same rhetoric, all of their claims of the apocalypse have been off the mark so far, why do people believe them when they say it all again.

It reminds me of how the Jehovah's Witnesses chose the date for the world to end several times, and when nothing happened they revised the date and continued to say all the same things. The faithful believed them every time. No burden of proof if you belong to a climate council, you can even be completely wrong, over and over.

[RickBradford]

Precisely. It is a call for more central planning, made by, er, central planners.

Edenhofer has spelled out the agenda quite clearly.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

[boomerangutang]

Most people get over of being afraid of the boogeyman by the time they're 10.

This is all the same rhetoric, all of their claims of the apocalypse have been off the mark so far, why do people believe them when they say it all again.

It reminds me of how the Jehovah's Witnesses chose the date for the world to end several times, and when nothing happened they revised the date and continued to say all the same things. The faithful believed them every time. No burden of proof if you belong to a climate council, you can even be completely wrong, over and over.

I agree, I know people who seem to be afraid of their own shadow. Jehovah's Witnesses, fogedaboudit, you can lump them in the same flat bed truck as other religionists. How about Republicans? They were completely sure that Romney would take the White House in 2012. Now they've revised the date, with as-yet-to-be-decided candidate for 2016, and they'll be just as sure as ever, for the lead-up to November 4th, ....until Hillary takes it.

[boomerangutang]

Precisely. It is a call for more central planning, made by, er, central planners. Edenhofer has spelled out the agenda quite clearly. "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

One person purportedly said one sentence, and you want to use that as the marching words for warmists?

Regardless of what that person said, we (the thinking/caring people of the world) need to lessen fossil fuel emissions.

As for lessening the abysmal divide between dems dat got truckloads of money, and dems dat don't even have a few seeds and stems, ...I'm for that. I'm not for stringing up rich people upside down from tree branches, and then taking buckets to fill up with the silver than comes cascading down out of their pockets. But I am for some egalitarianism. The rift between rich and poor is disgusting, and getting worse by the hour. Just one little facet of that, which applies to Thailand. THERE IS NO REAL ESTATE TAX IN THAILAND. Rich Bangkokians can gobble up square Km's of lovely rural properties, for pocket change, and not pay one satang in tax, ever. All those properties are fallow, with perhaps a few mansions here and there, most of which are empty. And those same rich Bangkokians can get a Cambodian girl to work 70 hours a week, for $1/day. Yea, let's get some redistribution going.

[chuckd]

"Regardless of what that person said, we (the thinking/caring people of the world) need to lessen fossil fuel emissions"

...We (the thinking/caring people of the world)????

[boomerangutang]

"Regardless of what that person said, we (the thinking/caring people of the world) need to lessen fossil fuel emissions"

...We (the thinking/caring people of the world)????

Glad you got a laugh out of that. But think a moment, who is saying GW isn't happening? And when the evidence is sterling that it is, they say something like, "ok, maybe it's happening, but it's not affected by human activities." And when it becomes clear, even to those employed or invested in Big Oil, that climate is affected by human activities, the denialists say "ok, maybe there is some effect by humans, but it's no big deal" ....or they just laugh.

[canuckamuck]

As a Canadian I would be very uncaring to wish the temperatures drop to 19th century levels.

We barely have a few weeks of summer as it is.

[cooked]

Who cares? Let mankind go down an historical plughole. Best thing that could happen to this planet. Pity about the kids

Sent from my GT-S7500 using Tapatalk 2

[canuckamuck]

Eventually there will be a really big war.

[RickBradford]

**One person purportedly said one sentence, and you want to use that as the marching words for warmists?**

Ottmar Edenhofer, is unfortunately much more than one person in terms of influence, as he is the co-chairman of the wretched UN body that produced this self-serving but otherwise vacuous report. He has been a senior and influential UN bureaucrat for a long time.

Nor was it one sentence -- he explained his position in a long interview, which I cannot quote at length due to fair use restrictions.

Nor is Edenhofer alone; EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard said much the same recently, to the effect that it doesn't matter whether anything in these reports is actually correct, we should all still do what she and the rest of the idiot Greens want anyway.

And as a moment's thought will show you, it is not the rich who suffer first when economic or social situations take a turn for the worse. Far from it.

[NumbNut]

Eventually there will be a really big war.

As opposed to a little one? But I reckon, unfortunately, you're right.

[boomerangutang]

EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard said much the same recently, to the effect that it doesn't matter whether anything in these reports is actually correct, we should all still do what she and the rest of the idiot Greens want anyway.

I doubt she said '...idiot Greens...'

And as a moment's thought will show you, it is not the rich who suffer first when economic or social situations take a turn for the worse. Far from it.

I agree. That's why it's better to start cleaning things up before crap starts hitting the fan in ever-increasing dosages, rather than after it's too thick to get through with a muckrake shovel.

The rich can move to St Tropez or St. Morritz, start fires with Euro notes, use brandy to fire up their BMW's. No, it's not the rich I'm fretting about. It's people like the Rohinga, who are setting off in leaky boats with 5 liters of petrol, trying to get to any country which won't persecute them. Or the S.Sudanese who can't even grow a berry bush in their country, because it's either too dry, or someone will come along and steal or destroy it.

[RickBradford]

Quite so, comrade, and the core reason is that Global Warming is a solution looking for a problem.

The unelected international bureaucracy looks at the solution to Global Warming (more centralisation, more bureaucracy, more regulation, taxation and control) and unsurprisingly likes what it sees. They then worked backwards (or rather were guided by the Green/Left) to find a problem which required those solutions, and Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ticked all the boxes.

The Solution predated the Problem.

This is why, when the Problem no longer plays along (globe hasn't warmed at all in the last 17 & half years), the Solution (repent now or all is lost) must be pushed harder and harder.

The chief threat to the poor of the world is not climate change, but climate change alarmism.

[boomerangutang]

My older brother is a Bible-thumper, and when he gets stumped, he says things in a solemn voice, like: "Repent now, or the blood of the lamb will be upon thy door!" He's not jesting. Ouch.

I won't get that grave, but I might say something like (using my best imitation of Charlton Heston); 'You might have a different perspective on things when water comes lapping at your door.'

Just thought I'd slip that Solomonic warning in there, since Noah is currently near the top of the movie charts.

Edited April 16, 2014 by boomerangutang

[wilcopops]

as a lyaperson it is often difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff, but sometimes it pays just to stand back and look at the overall situation and consider what is most LIKELY to be the reality........take a look at this scenario: -

"97% of the world’s scientisits contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies."

[KonaRain]

Mostly skeptics here..interesting slice of humanity..smart individual thinkers..!the ocean rising is the least of worries..except for that island,.heard it on the b.b.c...I wish it would warm up on my mountian, 《hawaii》 maybe it is little warmer..plenty rain, though..ready for war..lol

Aloha guys..You keep me entertained, 'till I return'

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[wilcopops]

Mostly skeptics here..interesting slice of humanity..smart individual thinkers..!the ocean rising is the least of worries..except for that island,.heard it on the b.b.c...I wish it would warm up on my mountian, 《hawaii》 maybe it is little warmer..plenty rain, though..ready for war..lol

Aloha guys..You keep me entertained, 'till I return'

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I think you would benefit from finding out about real sceptically and critical thinking, a combination of skills that are very useful in understanding the world around you.

[attrayant]

Offered without comment:

The consequences of climate change in our lifetimes

I recommend this video, and all others in his climate change series because he often takes aim at both sides - both the alarmists who exaggerate and say stupid things like 'the oceans are going to boil' and then deniers (often bloggers with appealing scientific-looking web sites) who misrepresent what's reported in the scientific literature. In this video you'll see both Al Gore and Monckton taken to task for using hyperbole and exaggerations in making their cases.

The video is easy to digest and doesn't use overly technical language. It highlights the dangers involved in trusting bloggers to tell you what's being reported in scientific literature.

[attrayant]

I just watched the video again and while there are some positive things reported near then end, one thing made me angry:

Eventually, humankind will have the technology to manage nuclear fusion, which will give us unlimited clean energy. But only if we put enough effort and resources into the research. And that's the problem: the amount we've spent on developing the world's first nuclear fusion reactor is barely two-thirds the cost of the BP Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico three years ago.

Our priorities are SO screwed up, it's not funny.

[boomerangutang]

N Fusion just may not be plausible with our current level of tech adeptness. I think the best the top researchers have been able to do, in practical terms, is spend $1,000 to get a dime's worth of power. Like the alchemists who spent centuries trying to turn other metals in to gold, and never succeeded, sometimes, you just gotta give it a rest.

Mostly skeptics here..interesting slice of humanity..smart individual thinkers..!the ocean rising is the least of worries..except for that island,.heard it on the b.b.c...I wish it would warm up on my mountian, 《hawaii》 maybe it is little warmer..plenty rain, though..ready for war..lol

Aloha guys..You keep me entertained, 'till I return'

My daughter secured some property on the big island, but I haven't yet been able to get over to visit HI, ever. One thing that's a bit troubling, however, is the Pacific Trash Vortex. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard some of that plastic trash is washing up on Hawaii's shores, particular northern parts. No place is perfect, but Hawaii seems to come darn close, comparatively - particularly when compared to other parts of the world. Hawaii, New Zealand, are two places which will be relatively sane and unscathed, 200 years from now. that doesn't discount other locales, but there are vast areas, as we speak, which are fast devolving to Miseryvilles. Think of the most miserable habitat on the planet, then multiply it by 20, and that's what a lot of regions are devolving toward. Toxicity, trash, too many people, and dearth of wildlife are key components in that trend.