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

[boomerangutang]

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.

A 'climate official' (whatever that is) makes a philosophical statement. Uh, ok. So...?

While we're waxing philosophical, I'll counter his opinion by offering my spin; 'international climate policy has much in common with environmental policy.'

Here's why: If 'international climate policy' advocates lessening of internal combustion engines, then that also fits with 'environmental policy.'

Similarly, if 'international climate policy' advocates planting more forest trees and maintaining natural habitat, then that could also perfectly describe an aspect of 'environmental policy.'

[RickBradford]

A 'climate official' (whatever that is) makes a philosophical statement.

He is not making a philosophical statement, he is offering a policy prescription.

Mostly, this will involve taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. And he explicitly states that this has nothing to do with the environment:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

I should have been more specific about his title; he is the co-chair of working group III (Mitigation of Climate Change) at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); he is therefore one of the main arbiters of what policies are adopted worldwide regarding climate change.

[wilcopops]

A 'climate official' (whatever that is) makes a philosophical statement.

He is not making a philosophical statement, he is offering a policy prescription.

Mostly, this will involve taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. And he explicitly states that this has nothing to do with the environment:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

I should have been more specific about his title; he is the co-chair of working group III (Mitigation of Climate Change) at the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); he is therefore one of the main arbiters of what policies are adopted worldwide regarding climate change.

Methinks it's time for RB to give up and realise he has a galileo complex....nothing to do with reason.......just an obsession with conspiracy. I'm sure there are those who could help.

[RickBradford]

And what 'conspiracy' would that be?

[boomerangutang]

Some of the deniers' anger is in regard to large scale programs such as 'carbon credits' and related payments. Whether or not such programs are problematic (or manipulated or bogus) does not lessen the degree that GW is happening. Large scale initiatives, with mucho money involved are bound to be controversial and likely involve corruption on some levels. Be that as it may, it doesn't disprove the bigger picture.

[wilcopops]

And what 'conspiracy' would that be?

Read your own posts!

[RickBradford]

And what 'conspiracy' would that be?

Read your own posts!

No, you read them, and show me where I use the word 'conspiracy'.

You are the one who is suggesting conspiracies, so I ask again: exactly what conspiracy is it you are talking about?

[RickBradford]

Some of the deniers' anger is in regard to large scale programs such as 'carbon credits' and related payments. Whether or not such programs are problematic (or manipulated or bogus) does not lessen the degree that GW is happening. Large scale initiatives, with mucho money involved are bound to be controversial and likely involve corruption on some levels. Be that as it may, it doesn't disprove the bigger picture.

The reality remains that carbon credits are easily the most idiotic and damaging of the feel-good Green fantasies that have emerged from the climate change swamp. The fact that it has collapsed entirely of its own accord, benefiting no-one except organised crime (a cool $5bn was recently p**sed away by failure to combat carbon market fraud in a mere 18 months.)

The Financial Times summed up this unholy mess with: "Elaborate structures such as the international carbon market were only ever going to be effective if they had a broad base grounded in common effort. That has not materialised, leaving Europe facing far higher energy costs because of the carbon tax, while others, including specifically the US and China, do nothing."

I accept that I am in a minority here, as I think the world's wealth would be better employed trying to fix real problems such as urban and river pollution, land salinity and degradation, overfishing, plus providing clean water and cheap health treatment to those in need, rather than on the vanity projects of a few well-connected bureaucrats and bankers. I guess that makes me a 'denier'.

You are quite right to say that the existence of carbon credit policies says nothing about the underlying science of climate change. Well, duh.

But it speaks volumes about the political motivation of those who use climate 'science' as a vehicle to impose policies which damage ordinary citizens worldwide and benefit a small self-appointed elite.

Taxing hot air really is as silly as it sounds.

[boomerangutang]

I accept that I am in a minority here, as I think the world's wealth would be better employed trying to fix real problems such as urban and river pollution, land salinity and degradation, overfishing, plus providing clean water and cheap health treatment to those in need, rather than on the vanity projects of a few well-connected bureaucrats and bankers. I guess that makes me a 'denier'.

No, what you described would define you as a well-informed person who wants some serious problems addressed.

Yes, there are bureaucrats and bankers involved with climate change political maneuvering, and salivating at possible windfalls to be made. Bureaucrats, Bankers and Corporate Heads have often stuck their grimy/greedy hands in large projects. Let's hope their involvements don't cause more harm than good. If they could make money selling tanned baby skins, they would do it.

[RickBradford]

Let's hope their involvements don't cause more harm than good.

Way too late for that.

To take just one example, the relentless Green push for 'renewable' fuels has already caused considerable misery in the poorer parts of the world.

The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, complained of an ill-conceived dash to convert foodstuffs such as maize and sugar into fuel, which was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. The organization also estimates that for every one percent rise in the price of food, 16 million more poor people become hungry.

One researcher estimated that the increase in the poverty headcount due to higher biofuel production caused 192,000 additional deaths in 2010 alone.

It took awhile as it always does, but now even the UN has caught up:

A leaked draft of a UN report condemns the widespread use of biofuels made from crops as a replacement for petrol and diesel. It says that biofuels, rather than combating the effects of global warming, could make them worse.

This is a classic example of Left/Green policy: Make an emotional decision as to what feels right (renewable fuel); ignore rational objections and implement the policy (trash the rainforests, and plant palm oil, burn food); turn a blind eye until someone points out the downside (poor people starving); belatedly condemn the policy while maintaining you were acting in everyone's best interests.

Another Green triumph. Standing among the corpses and intoning: "We meant well."

[Scott]

Greenland Glacier Loses Big Chunk of Ice

By By Stephanie Pappas, Live Science Contributor

Greenland's Jakobshavn glacier recently made headlines for its record-breakingly fast flow. Now, a new satellite image provides a visual of this process.

In a comparison between two images of the glacier, one taken May 9 and the other June 1, the loss of kilometers of ice from the calving front of the glacier is visible. The change is so significant that the after image almost looks like it has been "zoomed out" to make the glacier look smaller. But the views are the same.

http://news.yahoo.com/greenland-glacier-loses-big-chunk-ice-photo-115243811.html

[Neurath]

Assume for a moment that CO2 is a problem and that global warming is a problem too - not much a stretch really, but anyway.

The argument that "we" shouldn't increase the cost of carbon emissions because China and/or India won't doesn't work for child labor so I don't see why it should work for CO2 reduction.

[wilcopops]

Let's hope their involvements don't cause more harm than good.

Way too late for that.

To take just one example, the relentless Green push for 'renewable' fuels has already caused considerable misery in the poorer parts of the world.

The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, complained of an ill-conceived dash to convert foodstuffs such as maize and sugar into fuel, which was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel. The organization also estimates that for every one percent rise in the price of food, 16 million more poor people become hungry.

One researcher estimated that the increase in the poverty headcount due to higher biofuel production caused 192,000 additional deaths in 2010 alone.

It took awhile as it always does, but now even the UN has caught up:

A leaked draft of a UN report condemns the widespread use of biofuels made from crops as a replacement for petrol and diesel. It says that biofuels, rather than combating the effects of global warming, could make them worse.

This is a classic example of Left/Green policy: Make an emotional decision as to what feels right (renewable fuel); ignore rational objections and implement the policy (trash the rainforests, and plant palm oil, burn food); turn a blind eye until someone points out the downside (poor people starving); belatedly condemn the policy while maintaining you were acting in everyone's best interests.

Another Green triumph. Standing among the corpses and intoning: "We meant well."

"This is a classic example of Left/Green policy:" - an this is a fine example of.......well I'll let others decide

[Scott]

Inflammatory and troll posts removed.

[boomerangutang]

A leaked draft of a UN report condemns the widespread use of biofuels made from crops as a replacement for petrol and diesel. It says that biofuels, rather than combating the effects of global warming, could make them worse.

This is a classic example of Left/Green policy: Make an emotional decision as to what feels right (renewable fuel); ignore rational objections and implement the policy (trash the rainforests, and plant palm oil, burn food); turn a blind eye until someone points out the downside (poor people starving); belatedly condemn the policy while maintaining you were acting in everyone's best interests.

People make mistakes. Special interest groups make mistakes. Often, if they realize they made a mistake, they'll strive to make things better. I could list 1,000 mistakes conservatives have made over the years. Some were admitted and dealt with, but most were ignored or explained away in unconvincing ways. Three that stand out: Reagan's "No new taxes." and Bush Sr's "Read my lips" Bush Jr's' "There are WMD's in Iraq." All were reneged upon.

As for farm crops grown for ethanol/fuel. It's a relatively new dynamic. Most, if not all environmentalists see the glaring problems which have cropped up (pun intended) from that policy. They're flexible, and eager to adjust views and policies to best adapt to grim realities. It's working better in Brazil, because sugar produces more fuel per acre than corn. But still not a flawless policy. there are far graver mistakes going on as we speak: squeezing oil from tar sands in Canada. Fracking for oil, with all the attendant pollution, and of course, coal, which China is burning as fast as they can.

[RickBradford]

Mother Nature is a heretic. She refuses to bow to the climate alarmists and their predictions of thermal apocalypse, with global temperatures flat for almost 18 years.

So, Mother Nature has now received the traditional treatment meted out to heretics -- excommunication.

From now on, 'global warming' will no longer be measured by surface sea temperatures, and instead, sea level rise will be used as the metric.

Flailing around for yet another reason why they are always so wrong, the European Space Agency (ESA) scientists have decided that if the data doesn't match their pet theories, the thing to do is get rid of the data.

Stephen Briggs from the ESA said that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as "lousy".

"It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is," he said. (Isn't that exactly what forensic scientists have been doing for decades?)

In other words, the thing we have been told for 30 years is the key number defining 'global warming' has been quietly retired, and replaced with something that is still moving in the right direction.

"The models don’t have the skill we thought they had. That’s the problem," -- Peter Jan van Leeuwen, director of the National Centre of Earth Observation at the University of Reading, in a flash of honesty.

The inconvenient fact that sea level was around 6 metres higher during the Eemian Interglacial, and around 2 metres higher during the Holocene Optimum, 5500 years ago, is to be quietly ignored, as is the fact that sea level rise depends on numerous other factors than climate.

Your tax dollars at work (by the tens of billions).

[wilcopops]

Mother Nature is a heretic. She refuses to bow to the climate alarmists and their predictions of thermal apocalypse, with global temperatures flat for almost 18 years.

So, Mother Nature has now received the traditional treatment meted out to heretics -- excommunication.

From now on, 'global warming' will no longer be measured by surface sea temperatures, and instead, sea level rise will be used as the metric.

Flailing around for yet another reason why they are always so wrong, the European Space Agency (ESA) scientists have decided that if the data doesn't match their pet theories, the thing to do is get rid of the data.

Stephen Briggs from the ESA said that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as "lousy".

"It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is," he said. (Isn't that exactly what forensic scientists have been doing for decades?)

In other words, the thing we have been told for 30 years is the key number defining 'global warming' has been quietly retired, and replaced with something that is still moving in the right direction.

"The models don’t have the skill we thought they had. That’s the problem," -- Peter Jan van Leeuwen, director of the National Centre of Earth Observation at the University of Reading, in a flash of honesty.

The inconvenient fact that sea level was around 6 metres higher during the Eemian Interglacial, and around 2 metres higher during the Holocene Optimum, 5500 years ago, is to be quietly ignored, as is the fact that sea level rise depends on numerous other factors than climate.

Your tax dollars at work (by the tens of billions).

So ...... no conspiracy there then?

[wilcopops]

A leaked draft of a UN report condemns the widespread use of biofuels made from crops as a replacement for petrol and diesel. It says that biofuels, rather than combating the effects of global warming, could make them worse.

This is a classic example of Left/Green policy: Make an emotional decision as to what feels right (renewable fuel); ignore rational objections and implement the policy (trash the rainforests, and plant palm oil, burn food); turn a blind eye until someone points out the downside (poor people starving); belatedly condemn the policy while maintaining you were acting in everyone's best interests.

People make mistakes. Special interest groups make mistakes. Often, if they realize they made a mistake, they'll strive to make things better. I could list 1,000 mistakes conservatives have made over the years. Some were admitted and dealt with, but most were ignored or explained away in unconvincing ways. Three that stand out: Reagan's "No new taxes." and Bush Sr's "Read my lips" Bush Jr's' "There are WMD's in Iraq." All were reneged upon.

As for farm crops grown for ethanol/fuel. It's a relatively new dynamic. Most, if not all environmentalists see the glaring problems which have cropped up (pun intended) from that policy. They're flexible, and eager to adjust views and policies to best adapt to grim realities. It's working better in Brazil, because sugar produces more fuel per acre than corn. But still not a flawless policy. there are far graver mistakes going on as we speak: squeezing oil from tar sands in Canada. Fracking for oil, with all the attendant pollution, and of course, coal, which China is burning as fast as they can.

Science is built on mistakes or rather theories that are questioned and re-thought....the general situation with climate change is thus....however those who deny are working on weaker unsustainable theories that have repeatedly been shown to be baseless. Some just don't listen.....the climate change theories are workable and being tested - those who can't accept the theories are just the same as "flat-earthers" - that principle is pretty much established and they still harp on about an implausible concept.

Edited June 16, 2014 by wilcopops

[rsokolowski]

Even if global warming is occurring it's a waste of time and money the west trying to control the output of Co2 when India, China,Africa, Latin America and closer to home Thailand continue to burn everything.

Try convincing Thai farmers they should worry about rice field burning and the world in 50 years time.

If the USA and Europe stopped using all fossil fuels tomorrow, worldwide CO2 emissions would continue to rise. I am not a denier, I am practical. If hamstringing our economies will not stop rising CO2 levels, what exactly is the point?

[RickBradford]

Science is built on mistakes or rather theories that are questioned and re-thought....the general situation with climate change is thus

Actually, climate change is the exact opposite. Nothing must be allowed to even question the core belief "man-made CO2 is the principal driver of an impending global climate catastrophe."

As the ESA move clearly shows, if the pet theory disagrees with reality, then it's reality that must give way.

In fact, it's not a true theory at all, since there is no way it can be falsified.

So ...... no conspiracy there then?

If you can see a conspiracy, then please tell us what it is.

[wilcopops]

Even if global warming is occurring it's a waste of time and money the west trying to control the output of Co2 when India, China,Africa, Latin America and closer to home Thailand continue to burn everything.

Try convincing Thai farmers they should worry about rice field burning and the world in 50 years time.

If the USA and Europe stopped using all fossil fuels tomorrow, worldwide CO2 emissions would continue to rise. I am not a denier, I am practical. If hamstringing our economies will not stop rising CO2 levels, what exactly is the point?

Illogical and inaccurate - if global warming continues then you won't have an economy.

[wilcopops]

Science is built on mistakes or rather theories that are questioned and re-thought....the general situation with climate change is thus

Actually, climate change is the exact opposite. Nothing must be allowed to even question the core belief "man-made CO2 is the principal driver of an impending global climate catastrophe."

As the ESA move clearly shows, if the pet theory disagrees with reality, then it's reality that must give way.

In fact, it's not a true theory at all, since there is no way it can be falsified.

So ...... no conspiracy there then?

If you can see a conspiracy, then please tell us what it is.

No - you miss the point I don't - you do.

[RickBradford]

No - you miss the point I don't - you do.

Really? In that case, please point out any post of mine where I have mentioned or suggested a conspiracy.

[wilcopops]

No - you miss the point I don't - you do.

Really? In that case, please point out any post of mine where I have mentioned or suggested a conspiracy.

like all things with you this conversation is taking on a cyclical nature - you have your answer, but you seem to have a problem acknowledging this. Why not try and sort yourself out? No-one is out to get you.

Edited June 16, 2014 by wilcopops

[RickBradford]

No - you miss the point I don't - you do.

Really? In that case, please point out any post of mine where I have mentioned or suggested a conspiracy.

like all things with you this conversation is taking on a cyclical nature - you have your answer, but you seem to have a problem acknowledging this. Why not try and sort yourself out? No-one is out to get you.

I don't have the answer, which is why I am asking you to supply it.

Please point out any post of mine where I have suggested that over-hyped climate alarmism is some kind of conspiracy.

The cyclical nature of the conversation stems from your repetitive claiming of my belief in a conspiracy, and your equally repetitive refusal to supply any evidence whatever for that claim.

[boomerangutang]

Even if global warming is occurring it's a waste of time and money the west trying to control the output of Co2 when India, China,Africa, Latin America and closer to home Thailand continue to burn everything.

Try convincing Thai farmers they should worry about rice field burning and the world in 50 years time.

If the USA and Europe stopped using all fossil fuels tomorrow, worldwide CO2 emissions would continue to rise. I am not a denier, I am practical. If hamstringing our economies will not stop rising CO2 levels, what exactly is the point?

CO2 rising is not good, whether it's in extreme amounts or large amounts. Currently, each person on the planet contributes, on average, about 1 ton of CO2 annually. If that amount is lowered to half a ton/person/year, then yea, that's a lower amount, but it's still significant.

We know that plants like CO2. I've been actively clearing weeds (including hired help) on 3 rural parcels in north Thailand for over 15 years. I strongly suspect weeds are growing twice the rate they were 12 years ago. I haven't done any measurements, other than on-the-scene observations (is anyone measuring comparative plant growth?). I realize the CO2 debate is not much concerned with plant growth, but rather CO2's effect on 'greenhouse effect.' It's just interesting, to me, about phenomenal plant growth.

Methane releases are said to have 8 times the greenhouse effect compared to CO2. And methane releases are increasing, particularly in areas of tundra, in the Arctic region. ...and methane is also gasifying and bubbling up from seas.

[RickBradford]

Methane releases are said to have 8 times the greenhouse effect compared to CO2.

I don't know where you read that -- the actual figure is 25 times (see the AR4WG1 Technical Summary: 33)

So this particular tiresome alarm runs that increasing temperatures (even though they haven't risen for almost 18 years) will cause extra methane releases in cold areas, and this super-greenhouse gas will cause a feedback effect, so more warming, more release, and ... thermageddon!

And so, back in 2010, the commentators dutifully went into hysterical meltdown:

Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. The west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70 billion tonnes of methane. Local atmospheric levels of methane on the Siberian shelf are now 25 times higher than global concentrations.

Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth’s remaining resources.

Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.

Oh noes!

What lucky survivors of this catastrophe we are in 2014!

[boomerangutang]

You don't have to believe the warnings about methane releases. You don't even need to get so alarmed about it. If we're still around in the next 6 to 12 years, we'll have a pretty good idea whether it's true.

As for current situation: Methane is getting released in increasing amounts, particularly where there's tundra. Sorry if that spooks anyone.

[wilcopops]

Even if global warming is occurring it's a waste of time and money the west trying to control the output of Co2 when India, China,Africa, Latin America and closer to home Thailand continue to burn everything.

Try convincing Thai farmers they should worry about rice field burning and the world in 50 years time.

If the USA and Europe stopped using all fossil fuels tomorrow, worldwide CO2 emissions would continue to rise. I am not a denier, I am practical. If hamstringing our economies will not stop rising CO2 levels, what exactly is the point?

What's the point? Bad things happen when people do nothing.

[chuckd]

You don't have to believe the warnings about methane releases. You don't even need to get so alarmed about it. If we're still around in the next 6 to 12 years, we'll have a pretty good idea whether it's true.

As for current situation: Methane is getting released in increasing amounts, particularly where there's tundra. Sorry if that spooks anyone.

Farting should be outlawed or, at the very least, strictly regulated.