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

[snarky66]

You know it's bunk when they have to change the name. Make no mistake liberal loons like obama are gonna ride this pony till they get taxes raised.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[KonaRain]

Pretty Snarkey..

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

[attrayant]

You know it's bunk when they have to change the name.

Who changed the name of what now?

[boomerangutang]

The silly 'global warming canary' claims are far from being "indicators of global warming"

You're the one who is so fixated with the 'canary' reference. Even so, if you look at the items you mentioned, such as retreat of glaciers, you (well not you, RB, but others) will see many of those items are indicators of a warming planet.

They're 'not indicators' only for those who are fixated about not wanting to acknowledge there are any indicators of a warming planet.

You know it's bunk when they have to change the name.

Who changed the name of what now?

I think snarky66 means changing from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'

Personally, I think GW is an ok term, because the globe is warming. To what degree (pun intended) and what are contributing factors, is debatable. On the other hand 'Climate Change' is vague. Climate changes all the time.

[attrayant]

I think snarky66 means changing from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'

I figured as much, but want him to come back here and defend it, since it's false.

Personally, I think GW is an ok term, because the globe is warming. To what degree (pun intended) and what are contributing factors, is debatable. On the other hand 'Climate Change' is vague. Climate changes all the time.

Both terms are accurate, since both things are happening. Regional climates are changing as a result of global warming. Which term should be used depends on precisely which of these things the author is discussing.

[canuckamuck]

If the author is discussing some parallel universe where there been periods where climate did not change, it would be a good time to use the term climate change.

Otherwise it is somewhat obvious that the climate has always changed and therefore rhetorical.

Global warming is accurate in the fact that we are on a 12,000 year warming trend.

[attrayant]

You keep shooting down an argument that nobody is making. Once again, I don't think anyone is saying that the global climate has never changed. The questions and concerns revolve around the apparent unusually fast change we've seen over the last century, and whether not not the current civilization can adapt quickly enough to avoid some potentially devastating consequences.

From NOAA:

Frequently Asked Question 6.2 - Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earths History?

Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earths history. Some aspects of the current climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate.

The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which is very unusual for the Quaternary (about the last two million years). The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now 379 ppm. For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years.

What used to take 5000 years now takes less than a hundred.

A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years. It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes.

[A]lthough large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realized, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.

I guess that last sentence sums it up: What's happening now is happening at a faster rate than has ever happened before.

Edited May 11, 2014 by attrayant

[canuckamuck]

You keep shooting down an argument that nobody is making. Once again, I don't think anyone is saying that the global climate has never changed. The questions and concerns revolve around the apparent unusually fast change we've seen over the last century, and whether not not the current civilization can adapt quickly enough to avoid some potentially devastating consequences.

From NOAA:

Frequently Asked Question 6.2 - Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to Earlier Changes in Earths History?

Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earths history. Some aspects of the current climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate.

The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, which is very unusual for the Quaternary (about the last two million years). The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now 379 ppm. For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years.

What used to take 5000 years now takes less than a hundred.

A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years. It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes.

[A]lthough large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realized, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.

I guess that last sentence sums it up: What's happening now is happening at a faster rate than has ever happened before.

Here is the Quotation they are basing rapid global warming on and you use as your summation

"If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realized, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; " there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years."

For starters It is a statement beginning with the word 'If', so it is not a certainty. And it is really not saying anything factual at all. What they are saying is: if global temperatures rise much faster then the current rate (not warming) to a ridiculous 5 degrees in a century then the temperature rise would likely be unprecedented,

Which is like saying if the oven gets hot, it will be hot.

[RickBradford]

For decades, the research institute at Zurich University has monitored 30 mountain glaciers around the world. Because they are so visible, and measurable, institute director Wilfried Haeberli says glaciers are the best natural indicator of climate change. They are like the proverbial canary in the mine shaft,…

Well, that's just too bad for the alarmist Cause, because the Himalayan glaciers are overwhelmingly stable, according to eleven Indian scientists whose job it is to measure these things, rather than just concocting computer programs of man-made catastrophe.

Of course, it was the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who famously told the world that the Himalayan glaciers would all be gone by 2035 "and perhaps sooner", a silly or mendacious claim they were quickly forced to retract.

Now the Indian scientists are reporting that there is minimal change in the volume of glacial ice, with 87% of the glaciers stable, and the overall volume loss in the last decade a whopping 0.2%.

So, it's agreed. The "best natural indicator of climate change" has been measured, and the result is: "Almost no change."

[snarky66]

I think snarky66 means changing from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change'

I figured as much, but want him to come back here and defend it, since it's false.

Personally, I think GW is an ok term, because the globe is warming. To what degree (pun intended) and what are contributing factors, is debatable. On the other hand 'Climate Change' is vague. Climate changes all the time.

Both terms are accurate, since both things are happening. Regional climates are changing as a result of global warming. Which term should be used depends on precisely which of these things the author is discussing.

You heard it here first. The global warming hoaxers (weenies) have changed the name yet again. Today's hoax du jour is called "climate disruption". Make Me Laugh

[boomerangutang]

I think what RB meant to say was: Glaciers have generally been receding worldwide, but receding less dramatically in the Himalayas. Even so, here's what I found about glacial change in the Himalayas:

Thompson, the leading authority on high-altitude glaciers in the tropics and near tropics, pointed out that the Naimona'nyi glacier, which feeds the Indus River, had shrunk by 155m within the 30 years from 1976 to 2006, at a rate of about five metres per year.

"For the glaciers studied (in the Himalayas), approximately nine percent of the area of ice that was present in the early 1970s had disappeared by the early 2000s. Where we had decadal information, we could show that the rate of retreat had accelerated," Thompson said.

source

Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened.

The recent substantial retreat and an acceleration of the rate of retreat since 1995 of a number of key outlet glaciers of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, may foreshadow a rise in sea level, having a potentially dramatic effect on coastal regions worldwide.

link

Deniers have an uncanny ability to push aside all scientific evidence that GW is happening, and find one or two little tidbits that indicate it may not be happening as fast as reported.

[snarky66]

I wish hoaxers would swear off air travel immediately & thus not be accused of massive, in your face hypocrisy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[3NUMBAS]

Scientists at NASA and the University of California, Irvine have concluded that the glaciers of West Antarctica are now in terminal decline and the resultant ice loss could raise global sea levels by up to four feet over the next few centuries.

"The collapse of this sector of West Antarctica appears to be unstoppable," said UC Irvine glaciologist Eric Rignot, who is also with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

"The fact that the retreat is happening simultaneously over a large sector suggests it was triggered by a common cause, such as an increase in the amount of ocean heat beneath the floating parts of the glaciers. At this point, the end appears to be inevitable."

The research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, examines 40 years of measurement data from the Western Antarctic and uses data from two European Remote Sensing satellites that have been measuring glacial changes between 1992 and 2011 with radar that maps surface movement to within a quarter of an inch.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/12/scientists_warn_of_fourfoot_sea_level_rise_as_west_antarctic_glaciers_melt/

[RickBradford]

^^^

These are the kind of weasel worded articles that have turned thinking people away from climate alarmism in ever-growing numbers -- "could", "appears to be", "up to", "suggests".

In this particular case, the supposed disaster is even more distant: "But the researchers said that even though such a rise could not be stopped, it is still several centuries off, and potentially up to 1,000 years away."

It takes a special kind of feeble mentality to get in such a lather about something that "could" happen in 1000 years' time.

[snarky66]

So what if global warming is happening?

Couldn't give a toss. But the hoaxers claim it is man made. The hoaxers are irrational.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[canuckamuck]

How on earth do you determine if a glacier's decline appears to be unstoppable. Do they have glaciers under their control? Which glaciers appear to be stoppable?

You know what else appears to be unstoppable - magnetic storms on the sun. Should we write a breathless article about that: "NASA scientist's claim solar storms cannot be stopped. The resultant changes in earth's global temperature may continue to rise for hundreds of years, or possibly not, Although nothing unusual is happening, NASA feels we should all be very afraid."

[RickBradford]

^^^

They don't know, of course. The best they can say is that they can't find any "major obstacles" which would block the glaciers' retreat.

The whole episode highlights precisely what is wrong with the climate alarmism movement.

Instead of focusing on real environmental problems such as desertification, land salinity, overfishing, urban pollution, river pollution, industrial pollution and so on, we are supposed to focus on dismantling our industrial heritage to possibly delay or mitigate these possible events which may happen several hundred years from now.

It makes no sense by any rational analysis (which the Green/Left is unfortunately incapable or unwilling to carry out)

It's not just wrong; it's 180 degrees wrong.

[boomerangutang]

How on earth do you determine if a glacier's decline appears to be unstoppable. Do they have glaciers under their control? Which glaciers appear to be stoppable?

Glaciers traditionally build up. They also calve and melt. In recent decades, glaciers have been losing bulk much faster than in prior times, AND THEY'RE NOT ADDING BULK. Were that your sister could say the same. If you sincerely want to study the dynammics of glaciers, there's a wealth of data online. Best of all, would be to go to glaciers and document their conditions, which some climate scientists are doing as we speak.

Glaciers, particularly some of the world's biggest at Antarctica, traditionally have ice on rock at their bases. When that ice melts to become water on rock, the glacier will naturally move faster than before. You could call it 'unstoppable' in that scenario.

So what if global warming is happening?

Couldn't give a toss. But the hoaxers claim it is man made. The hoaxers are irrational.

'Couldn't give a toss.' You're not expected to give a toss. You, like most posters here, live comfortable lives with pensions, and many T.Visaites are middle aged, with their focus on keeping their Thai wives happy. Why should such comfy people 'give a toss' about Bangladeshis or South Sudanese and others who will face increased hardships? There are a thousand ways to sweep them off one's concern:

>> they're far away

>> I don't have any interaction with them. They don't even dig my ditches or brew my beer.

>> They've always been poor, and they always will be poor. Tough tamales.

>> It's their dumb choice or rotten luck to be stuck in such miserable countries.

>> Warming isn't happening

>> Even if warming is happening, it won't change anything

>> I'll be compost before any bad stuff happens, anyway

>> climate changes all the time. Why the 'Chicken Little' worries?

>> So what if a glacier is melting in Alaska. that's the other side of the world.

>> Climate scientists are only after more grant money, so the more they dramatize things, the more money they make

>> my Thai wife has a pimple on her arm, and needs to go to the hospital, so I have more important things to do than worry about a chunk of ice melting in Antarctica.

[KonaRain]

regional climates are changing.. no warm required.. so tonight on the b.b.c. actually 04:30 London..NASA guy nicely explaining as the Antarctic glacier ..flows.. he used another word also..into the sea to raise sea level 60 cm..then 3 meters in the next 200-1000 years.. a very fair estimate it seems to me.. for all of us to do what needs to be done, such as sea walls..my Kona Inn seawall is being rebuilt as we speak..

more time will be better..can we close the thread now, cause I think we don't need to be scared because we have enough time.. lollol Storms are getting nasty.. ice age or not.. mu scepticism has been placated..

Hail Antarctica.

or is that Atlantis..

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[KonaRain]

^^^

These are the kind of weasel worded articles that have turned thinking people away from climate alarmism in ever-growing numbers -- "could", "appears to be", "up to", "suggests".

In this particular case, the supposed disaster is even more distant: "But the researchers said that even though such a rise could not be stopped, it is still several centuries off, and potentially up to 1,000 years away."

It takes a special kind of feeble mentality to get in such a lather about something that "could" happen in 1000 years' time.

Thee it is..nine feet.. 2-10 centuries.. it'll be revised..its good end for me.. alohz

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[KonaRain]

How on earth do you determine if a glacier's decline appears to be unstoppable. Do they have glaciers under their control? Which glaciers appear to be stoppable?

You know what else appears to be unstoppable - magnetic storms on the sun. Should we write a breathless article about that: "NASA scientist's claim solar storms cannot be stopped. The resultant changes in earth's global temperature may continue to rise for hundreds of years, or possibly not, Although nothing unusual is happening, NASA feels we should all be very afraid."

Eastern Antarctica..

Alohz

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[NumbNut]

I wish hoaxers would swear off air travel immediately & thus not be accused of massive, in your face hypocrisy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I wish all deniers that live in Thailand would turn their air cons off... and enjoy the ' climate'.

Hypocrisy? I'm looking at it snarky.

De-Nile ain't just a river in Egypt...

[snarky66]

Climate disruption. LOL @ hoaxers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[snarky66]

Dude on earth day I turn on every light, tv, radio then I open the door on my oven, turn on full blast & then head to the air conditioned mall.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[boomerangutang]

my Kona Inn seawall is being rebuilt as we speak..

People in Kona can afford to do things like build sturdy sea walls. Tens of millions of folks in places like Bangladesh can't afford to.

Bangkok has been building walls along the Chao Praya river and its tributaries. That's another 'sign of the times' There's talk of surrounding Bkk with a giant berm, and then employing giant pumps - because when you build dams to keep water out, you also keep water in. Bangkok should be abandoned and/or moved to higher ground, preferably several satellite cities. Where is higher ground in Thailand? Half the country is at or near sea level. When seas rise, as they will, regardless of opinions on this thread, Bkk and dozens of other cities will be flooded. Some of the cities with more money to spend, like New Orleans, Amsterdam, London, Miami and NYC, will avoid flooding for awhile, via higher sea walls and multi-billion dollar floodgates. Since nearly all coastal cities also have rivers running through them, they will also have to create higher walls for their rivers and tributaries.

Dude on earth day I turn on every light, tv, radio then I open the door on my oven, turn on full blast & then head to the air conditioned mall.

And there are 5 year olds who train magnifying lenses on ants and burn them up. Just as naughty and just as cute.

[snarky66]

You would have fit right in at Jonestown.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[boomerangutang]

I wish hoaxers would swear off air travel immediately & thus not be accused of massive, in your face hypocrisy.

There are a lot of environmentally conscious folks who swear off flying in jets - and many (myself included) who use jet travel as little as possible. The exception, for me, is when I visit my daughter every few years, on the other side of the world. It would be interesting to see sailing ships come back - even for cross-ocean travel. Blimps would be cool also, but a tad bit impractical. The above poster seems eager to point fingers and accuse others of hypocrisy. There are better ways of getting a message across.

[boomerangutang]

You would have fit right in at Jonestown.

I know we're not supposed to feed trolls, but 'who' '...would fit right in'? and what's that accusation in relation to?

If you're going to toss accusations around like a naughty toddler, then you should try to articulate, so we can get an idea why you're throwing chocolate pudding at the wet nurse.

[KonaRain]

Jeesh..'Our' NASA guy... lol..said 1,000 years is..well he said 200 years with 3 meters..ten feet..would be unfortunate..

nothing is natural is Holland, for instance.. all the land was re taken from the sea..or is that taken..? in middle of the forest, the trees are planted in rows..

I thought be was jesting.. american on b.b.c. yesterday.. but its probably true!

So the catastrophists, need to _stop trolling_and realize as John Hockenberry said this morn. on NPR..

smaller, better, faster means that new technologies and techniques will enable us to get through and stop worrying about bangaledesh..I appreciate the YouTube heads up Yesterday.. I'm sure in a couple centuries we'll be able to build seawalls like Holland.. as the scientist said..I'm walking in my forest, and I remember where I was when he said this..yesterday.. if the dutch did it..a long time ago..we'll have easy access to free energy.. to help even Bangladesh.. George and Ravi were my friends..Bangladesh will be fine,

'Chinese build house in with 3D techniques.. '

www.theguardian.com

I think I was the one about warming to change..and I appreciate the above comments^^

we started the solar business here, and I'm freezing in my Kona cabin..things will get better..

Let's ( the good ones) take a break for a couple days, think loving kindness thoughts..

'may all beings be happy'..

everything I've said above is from public radio, pri, and the bbc in the last two days..

'I'm a Parrot, but a kind one..no, there's a mosquito.. never happened before..we're gonna dieeeee...

Alohz gents..

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited May 14, 2014 by KonaRain

[KonaRain]

the guardian link above is a video of 3D house..big machine...

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app