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

[canuckamuck]

Pop up to post #580 of this thread and you will see some links that are in disagreement with your belief in scientific consensus.

You are right about the climate being unpredictable, and personally I think warming is a non issue in comparison to some upcoming global issues, particularly financial.

[MW72]

Pop up to post #580 of this thread and you will see some links that are in disagreement with your belief in scientific consensus.

You are right about the climate being unpredictable, and personally I think warming is a non issue in comparison to some upcoming global issues, particularly financial.

Some interesting reading at these links. This is a problem with the information that the public get to hear about. Most of us don't have the time to read every single scientific paper or study and most of us would not understand the data or terminology (myself included). Most of us will get our info from the news media or documentries and then the question is, who is paying for these programs and what is their agenda? Manipulation of the conclusions such as is being reported on these links is not good and leads to a lack of trust in the scientific community which can never be a good thing.

I would agree that the financial situation of the world is concerning however climate, whether influenced by mankind or not, has a massive bearing on financial stability. Weather, whether droughts, floods, snow and storms can cause massive disruption to the worlds food economy driving prices up and leaving the poorer amongst us to starve. Damage to property and infrastructure has massive financial costs also.

One good thing about the drive to be "green" is that if done properly, some of the efficiencies gained can lead to production costs being lower and if passed on to the consumer will lead to lower prices on the high street and more money in the pocket to spend on other product therefore stimulating growth. I am sure the economics are much more complicated than that but you get the idea.

The efficiencies in fuel consumption in cars over the last 20 years or so has been quite amazing. I am a firm believer that individuals and businesses will be the biggest leaders in cutting emmissions without the need for government interference and they will do it not because of "climate change" but because they will save money and that is always the biggest incentive.

[snarky66]

Google has plenty of money to ratchet up the hoax too.

[canuckamuck]

Pop up to post #580 of this thread and you will see some links that are in disagreement with your belief in scientific consensus.

You are right about the climate being unpredictable, and personally I think warming is a non issue in comparison to some upcoming global issues, particularly financial.

Some interesting reading at these links. This is a problem with the information that the public get to hear about. Most of us don't have the time to read every single scientific paper or study and most of us would not understand the data or terminology (myself included). Most of us will get our info from the news media or documentries and then the question is, who is paying for these programs and what is their agenda? Manipulation of the conclusions such as is being reported on these links is not good and leads to a lack of trust in the scientific community which can never be a good thing.

I would agree that the financial situation of the world is concerning however climate, whether influenced by mankind or not, has a massive bearing on financial stability. Weather, whether droughts, floods, snow and storms can cause massive disruption to the worlds food economy driving prices up and leaving the poorer amongst us to starve. Damage to property and infrastructure has massive financial costs also.

One good thing about the drive to be "green" is that if done properly, some of the efficiencies gained can lead to production costs being lower and if passed on to the consumer will lead to lower prices on the high street and more money in the pocket to spend on other product therefore stimulating growth. I am sure the economics are much more complicated than that but you get the idea.

The efficiencies in fuel consumption in cars over the last 20 years or so has been quite amazing. I am a firm believer that individuals and businesses will be the biggest leaders in cutting emmissions without the need for government interference and they will do it not because of "climate change" but because they will save money and that is always the biggest incentive.

The drive to be green is bounding with good and responsible people who wish to make the best environmental decisions. However what is or isn't green really needs some re-definition. For example: Taking millions of food growing hectares out of food production to create bio-fuels does not reduce CO2 emissions in any significant way and contributes to rising food costs across the planet. And even if it did have an impact on CO2 emissions, it is becoming painfully obvious that CO2 is not the big environmental bogeyman it has been made out to be.

Actual green behavior is conservation of resources, containment of industrial waste products, permaculture farming, and the education and development of less developed nations. Engineering more efficient technologies is where the heartbeat of the green movement should be. This is what everyone wants on both sides, but we have been led into the CO2 witch hunt. A misdirected movement of global dimensions. A billion dollars a day that could be used towards actual resource management. We can't control the climate, but we can do something about pollution and habitat destruction.

[MW72]

The drive to be green is bounding with good and responsible people who wish to make the best environmental decisions. However what is or isn't green really needs some re-definition. For example: Taking millions of food growing hectares out of food production to create bio-fuels does not reduce CO2 emissions in any significant way and contributes to rising food costs across the planet. And even if it did have an impact on CO2 emissions, it is becoming painfully obvious that CO2 is not the big environmental bogeyman it has been made out to be.

Actual green behavior is conservation of resources, containment of industrial waste products, permaculture farming, and the education and development of less developed nations. Engineering more efficient technologies is where the heartbeat of the green movement should be. This is what everyone wants on both sides, but we have been led into the CO2 witch hunt. A misdirected movement of global dimensions. A billion dollars a day that could be used towards actual resource management. We can't control the climate, but we can do something about pollution and habitat destruction.

I couldn't agree with you more. Especially on the bio fuels. I don't know anyone who uses these and as you say, with the shortage of food in the world it seems obscene to be growing bio fuels on land that could produce food.

[boomerangutang]

The fellow who spearheaded the amazing time-lapse videos of glaciers, wasn't on a large budget.

You can see in the video, he jerry-rigged some equipment, with the help of a tinkerer in a garage. Sometimes he'd get to a remote site, and find the gadgets malfunctioned or broke, because of the severe weather. The guy is at the vanguard of some fascinating studies. There are some other scientists who brave harsh conditions in places like Antarctica, drilling test bores to see how much melting is going on at the base of glaciers. Sure, there's some funding going on, but it's nothing compared to what Defense or Occupational Safety and other entities spend for very-often completely trivial things - like an expensive study to gauge why tricycles sometimes fall over (the $267k conclusion: 3 wheels make them prone to tip over).

There's a lot of very interesting science going on with climate data. Anytime data comes along which indicates global warming trend, deniers immediately jump all over it, trying to poo-poo the data or, if that doesn't stick, trying to denigrate the scientists garnering the data.

[RickBradford]

Anytime data comes along which indicates global warming trend, deniers immediately jump all over it, trying to poo-poo the data or, if that doesn't stick, trying to denigrate the scientists garnering the data.

Good timing; here's the latest HadCRUT data of 21st century temperature trends.

Feel free to poo-poo it, or, if that doesn't stick, denigrate the scientists.

[wilcopops]

RB, you've already made it very clear, in many posts, that you will refute any scientific evidence that comes forth

BRU, you've already made it very clear, in many posts, that you will do anything to avoid discussing scientific evidence, so the idea of me 'refuting' it simply doesn't come into play.

I point out that the meticulously collected satellite data shows no global warming in almost 18 years; you offer advice about 'booger slinging' -- who's the one talking more about the scientific evidence?

As for the rest of your hand-waving, I have stated on many occasions that I accept the planet has been warming gradually since 1850, and that human influence probably plays some part in that warming.

You are cemented in fixatedly denying the scientific basis of anyone's views which contradict your own.

"I point out that the meticulously collected satellite data shows no global warming in almost 18 years;" - it doesn't matter how many times you say this , it is not true it was never claimed.

[RickBradford]

The RSS satellite temperature data for the last 18 years

[canman]

Anytime data comes along which indicates global warming trend, deniers immediately jump all over it, trying to poo-poo the data or, if that doesn't stick, trying to denigrate the scientists garnering the data.

Good timing; here's the latest HadCRUT data of 21st century temperature trends.

Feel free to poo-poo it, or, if that doesn't stick, denigrate the scientists.

Shhhhhhhhh; 97.8% of all scienteist who have ever lived say the temperatures are going up!

[boomerangutang]

Reasonable people will look at the chart below, and think something like; 'It sure looks like a global warming trend for the past 100+ years.'

Deniers will glance at the chart, and find all sorts of ways to refute it. They'll start by trying to refute the data. If that doesn't work, they'll denigrate the scientists and/or organization who published it. If that doesn't work, they'll say 'So what. It doesn't matter, because climate changes every day.' Or perhaps; 'So what, most plants like warmer temperatures.' Or; 'even if there is some warming, it's certainly not affected by the 1 ton/year of CO2 each of 7 billion people, on average, produces.'

Deniers could also say, by looking at the chart: "Look at the period from 2941 to 1951; there was cooling then. See, we're actually on a cooling trend."

BTW, at the right side of the chart, where we are now, there could be a comparative cooling, of 5 to 10 years. That may be significant in the short term, but it's just as possible the chart could keep hiking upwards. In other words, even if there's a dip, it's not necessarily indicative of the general trend over decades. It's decades which are most relevant to current human habitation. We, as a species have adapted rather well (some would say too well). Mainly through large concentrations of people at cities at places which are within 1 or 2 meters of sea level, like Bkk. If sea levels rise, and/or climate changes dramatically (bigger typhoons, more severe droughts,etc.) within a matter of years, it will adversely affect large populations. Changes over centuries are comparatively less significant, because the longer time frame enables populations to adapt.

Two examples: Typhoon Nargis wiped out hundreds of villages in southern Burma, and more recently the destructive typhoon on Philippine's east coast. Sure, typhoons happen every year, but those two, plus a few others in recent years (Taiwan), were larger than normal, so communities in their path are more vulnerable than they would ordinarily be, because they were bracing for less severe storms.

Edited May 19, 2014 by boomerangutang

[canuckamuck]

We have been here before with this discussion. warmists say 18 years isn't long enough to show a trend. so they show something from the last 150 or so years. Which really seems to demonstrate how hot things have gotten. But what happens if we go back even further? Oops. Now it just seems the Earth is very cold and very slow to recover from the last cooling trend. It looks to me like the trend is towards an ice age, rather than runaway heating.

10,000 years of hot and cold

Edited May 19, 2014 by canuckamuck

[boomerangutang]

In the Northern Hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is located, the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years, according to the 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change' (IPCC).

source

[boomerangutang]

We have been here before with this discussion. warmists say 18 years isn't long enough to show a trend. so they show something from the last 150 or so years. Which really seems to demonstrate how hot things have gotten. But what happens if we go back even further? Oops. Now it just seems the Earth is very cold and very slow to recover from the last cooling trend. It looks to me like the trend is towards an ice age, rather than runaway heating. 10,000 years of hot and cold

You don't have to agree with me on parameters, but 10,000 years is too big a span of time to be relevant. I mentioned the reasons in my long post above, with the red chart. If we want to play with numbers, sure there have periods in Earth's history where very extreme temps prevailed. Worldwide ice cover sometimes, and worldwide drought at others. That's fascinating paleontology, but not relevant to the climate effects now.

that's why I said 'decades' is better gauge of effects on people. Year to year is too small an increment, because climate fluctuates up and down over any increment of a few years. Decades are more relevant because cities cannot adjust significantly much in 10, 20 30 or even 50 years. Example: take the few sane people (a minority of the people who can have an effect) who advocate Bkk moving to higher ground. Even if their sage advice were heeded, it would take decades to move significant #'s of people out of Bangkok. Instead, what will happen, Bangkok will suffer one or more severe floods (making 2011 look like a puddle), and photos and stories will be plastered all over the news - of Bangkokians and tourists suffering, as well as massive infrastructure destruction. Call me an alarmist, if you want. I don't care about name - calling.

[canuckamuck]

It is convenient that the only time frame you will accept is the only one which appears to support your position.

So the last 18 years are irrelevant and the last 10,000 are irrelevant, but the 80's and 90's are critical. Ok, got it.

[boomerangutang]

It is convenient that the only time frame you will accept is the only one which appears to support your position.

So the last 18 years are irrelevant and the last 10,000 are irrelevant, but the 80's and 90's are critical. Ok, got it.

Wrong. Who said 80's and 90's? I posted a graph showing the past 135 years, which is a period spanning accurate temperature readings. It also relates to 'decades' idea, for reasons I articulated upon in two recent posts.

[RickBradford]

Reasonable people will look at the chart below, and think something like; 'It sure looks like a global warming trend for the past 100+ years.'

Deniers will glance at the chart, and find all sorts of ways to refute it.

Congratulations on completing your magnificent straw man! A real triumph.

Nobody on this thread and nobody who discusses climate science at large, in fact nobody who can understand a temperature chart, disputes that the global temperature has risen over the past 100+ years.

These 'deniers' you speak of above are coming purely out of your own febrile imagination, and if you want to hold imaginary conversations with them, that's fine.

To remind you once again, the real-world issues are: whether human activity is affecting the planet's climate; to what extent that is the case; what dangers might that pose in the future, and what should we do about it, if anything.

[MW72]

We have been here before with this discussion. warmists say 18 years isn't long enough to show a trend. so they show something from the last 150 or so years. Which really seems to demonstrate how hot things have gotten. But what happens if we go back even further? Oops. Now it just seems the Earth is very cold and very slow to recover from the last cooling trend. It looks to me like the trend is towards an ice age, rather than runaway heating.

10,000 years of hot and cold

There is a theory that the melting of the ice caps and glaciers will decrease the salinity of the oceans which will disrupt the gulf stream. The gulf stream brings warm currents from the gulf of Mexico acroos the atlantic to the shores of Europe and keep the temperatures in the UK relatively higher than other countries on the same lattitude such as Canada and Russia. The effect of this would mean much lower temperatures in Europe and could lead to a new ice age. It is just a theory but there seems to be evidence that it has happened in the past.

[wilcopops]

If you can find it, watch the Nat Geo documentary "Chasing Ice". Very interesting and concerning evidence of the retreat of the glaciers.

Sent from my KFTT using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I forgot to add: Is global warming real? Is it natural or has mankind had an influence? Watch Chasing Ice and make up your own mind.

Chasing Ice is about some researchers, one in particular who was given a huge budget to document some specifically chosen, rapidly retreating glaciers. The footage is dramatic and unique, mostly because no one has ever done that before. The entire premise of the show is, "wow these glaciers are melting fast, therefore humans are to blame". They do not connect the dots however, the movie just assumes that fast melt equals human blame.

But can you imagine how fast the glaciers were moving at any of multiple warming trends in the last 12,000 years? How about when North America was nearly buried in Ice miles high. Do you think ice was melting pretty quick then? I think so.

.

Of course we were not to blame for any other warming cycle, even though several times in the last 10,000 years it has been much warmer than this. Yes that was all natural, but if it happens today, it's because we did it. Something we need to realize is, ice is not an endangered species. It melts, it freezes, it makes your drink a little nicer. We have warmed up quite a bit in the last 200 years, but we have quite a ways to go before we are somewhere the earth hasn't been before.

I agree with you that at the end of the last ice age the ice was melting pretty rapidly and that was without the influence of humans. There are so many factors that effect our climate that it is difficult to prove any one thing is having a greater effect than another.

The majority of scientists are in agreement on "climate change" but that does not mean they are correct. Many theories have been accepted by the majority only to be proved wrong when further evidence is uncovered and many theories have been dismissed by the majority only to be proven correct. The human race could spend a lot of money and a lot of time reducing green house gasses only to find that the sun decides to throw a spanner in the works and go into a period of low activity which could send us into an ice age. It could also erupt and send a massive wave of particles at us that could rip our atmosphere apart and end all life on earth. Who knows?

The scientists may be wrong on this but over a period of time and after gathering more and more data they are making the best conclusions they can. I know that I would put more faith in the scientific community before I would trust a politician, business man or religious man and their theories.

"Many theories have been accepted by the majority only to be proved wrong when further evidence is uncovered and many theories have been dismissed by the majority only to be proven correct." This is a fallacy .....but after a good theory is accepted, there is ALWAYS a bunch of loons who think it is some kind of conspiracy

[wilcopops]

The RSS satellite temperature data for the last 18 years

Yes it's a picture - what you make of it is up to you.......if you want to fantasise, go ahead

[RickBradford]

^^^

Those of us down here in the rational world call it "data".

But it's all right because we're doomed already. Almost 15 years ago, in fact.

September 17, 1969

FOR JOHN EHRLICHMAN [have I heard that name somewhere before? - Ed.]

It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York.

Goodbye Washington, for that matter.

Daniel P. Moynihan

Idiotic Green alarmism isn't new, by any means, and continues to blight the lives of billions.

Moynihan adds

Hugh Heffner knows a great deal about this,

About raising temperatures? Amongst the young and acne-plagued, certainly.

[wilcopops]

We are looking at a person who appears to know everything, but on closer examination is revealed to understand nothing.

[canuckamuck]

We have been here before with this discussion. warmists say 18 years isn't long enough to show a trend. so they show something from the last 150 or so years. Which really seems to demonstrate how hot things have gotten. But what happens if we go back even further? Oops. Now it just seems the Earth is very cold and very slow to recover from the last cooling trend. It looks to me like the trend is towards an ice age, rather than runaway heating.

10,000 years of hot and cold

There is a theory that the melting of the ice caps and glaciers will decrease the salinity of the oceans which will disrupt the gulf stream. The gulf stream brings warm currents from the gulf of Mexico acroos the atlantic to the shores of Europe and keep the temperatures in the UK relatively higher than other countries on the same lattitude such as Canada and Russia. The effect of this would mean much lower temperatures in Europe and could lead to a new ice age. It is just a theory but there seems to be evidence that it has happened in the past.

Something makes the global temperature go up and down, yes ocean salinity maybe a co-factor. There is a lot to the picture. Sadly some want to make it all about industry so there can be a common enemy. But as the graph plainly shows, Mother Nature can be a beeyach all by herself

Edited May 25, 2014 by canuckamuck

[KonaRain]

Its true that the Solar Wind is causing weather..(new study) .. we knew this before, but not is shown to be more affecting and in a high cycle.

The building code in Honolulu required 4 foot rise above ground level near ocean, now must be 10. that's +6..

existing structures such as Waikiki must defend their position, lol .. then retreat from rising Sea Level.. Tidal Wave inundation zone has been expanded..

News to me..

I'm looking for the link..

Hawaii Public Radio, May 23, 2014

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

[boomerangutang]

Its true that the Solar Wind is causing weather..(new study) .. we knew this before, but not is shown to be more affecting and in a high cycle.

The building code in Honolulu required 4 foot rise above ground level near ocean, now must be 10. that's +6..

existing structures such as Waikiki must defend their position, lol .. then retreat from rising Sea Level.. Tidal Wave inundation zone has been expanded..

News to me..

I'm looking for the link..

Hawaii Public Radio, May 23, 2014

4 ft to 10 ft, quite a rise. Stair builders probably won't mind.

Sorry for the flippant remark, but I used to be the go-to guy for building flights of stairs - in N.California, where I resided b4 coming to reside in Thailand. Several construction crews would call me on that. I even did some spiral jobs and a few domes. Fun stuff, in a riser and tread sort of way.

[KonaRain]

No problem, bro.

I've changed my view..Aloha

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

[Scott]

This thread may be of interest to some posters in this topic:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/729756-prince-charles-stirs-controversy-with-warning-over-climate/

[RickBradford]

The Green/Left's War on CO2 is having predictable consequences -- the trashing of the environment.

After between 4,000 and 12,000 people died as a direct result of London's 1952 'Great Smog', the British Government passed the Clean Air Act (1956) which rapidly improved air quality in the city.

More recently, this positive trend has been reversed due to the upsurge in the use of diesel engines. Why? Because the self-appointed elites were told that diesel engines emit less of the demon CO2 than petrol engines, blindly ignoring the fact that they emit far more dangerous particulate matter such as NOx.

"Successive governments knew more than 10 years ago that diesel was producing all these harmful pollutants, but they myopically plowed on with their CO2 agenda,” said Simon Birkett, founder of Clean Air in London, a nonprofit group. “It’s been a catastrophe for air pollution, and that’s not too strong a word. It’s a public-health catastrophe.

In fact, London's air quality has now degenerated so badly that it is worse than Beijing's, Bloomberg News reports.

But, it's all in a 'good' cause, eh?

As UN climate official Ottmar Edenhofer said: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."

Indeed. In fact, it's almost the opposite.

[boomerangutang]

excerpt below is from article in National Geographic titled
'Species Extinction Happening 1,000 Times Faster Because of Humans?'

Jenny McGuire, a postdoctoral research scientist at the University of Washington's School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, says, "in general scientists are in agreement that we're at a period of heightened extinction risk and rates, and that's been occurring nearly since humans have come onto the landscape."

McGuire sees... a "really excellent call to arms" for people to act to prevent more species from vanishing.

She says that people can vote for policies that lessen the impact of climate change, which is hitting the oceans particularly hard by raising the water's pH and dissolving the shells of many marine animals.

source

[boomerangutang]

The Green/Left's War on CO2 is having predictable consequences -- the trashing of the environment.

After between 4,000 and 12,000 people died as a direct result of London's 1952 'Great Smog', the British Government passed the Clean Air Act (1956) which rapidly improved air quality in the city.

More recently, this positive trend has been reversed due to the upsurge in the use of diesel engines. Why? Because the self-appointed elites were told that diesel engines emit less of the demon CO2 than petrol engines, blindly ignoring the fact that they emit far more dangerous particulate matter such as NOx.

"Successive governments knew more than 10 years ago that diesel was producing all these harmful pollutants, but they myopically plowed on with their CO2 agenda,” said Simon Birkett, founder of Clean Air in London, a nonprofit group. “It’s been a catastrophe for air pollution, and that’s not too strong a word. It’s a public-health catastrophe.

In fact, London's air quality has now degenerated so badly that it is worse than Beijing's, Bloomberg News reports.

But, it's all in a 'good' cause, eh?

As UN climate official Ottmar Edenhofer said: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy."

Indeed. In fact, it's almost the opposite.

So..... people make policy mistakes. Is that a new phenomena?