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

[RickBradford]

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

It already has been.

Outrage over cull of farting camels (SMH, July 5, 2011)

The world's association of camel scientists fought back angrily over Australian plans to kill wild dromedaries on the grounds that their flatulence adds to global warming.

The kill-a-camel suggestion is floated in a paper distributed by Australia's Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, as part of consultations for reducing the country's carbon footprint.

They number around 1.2 million and, say some, are a pest because of the damage they inflict to vegetation and their intestinal gases. Each camel, according to the champions of a cull, emits 45kg of methane, the equivalent of one tonne a year in carbon dioxide (CO2), the main warming gas.

There, now, I bet you never knew there was a "world's association of camel scientists". You can't be too careful what you do these days, there's always somebody watching.

[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.

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

If you can't counter with science, then resort to jokes.

[RickBradford]

Another day, another expensive failed attempt at wealth redistribution by taxing air.

UN climate talks fracture over future of carbon markets

Negotiatons on Clean Development Mechanism reforms halted

The use of carbon markets to curb rising greenhouse gas emissions was dealt a blow on Sunday after two weeks of United Nations talks on designing and reforming the mechanisms ended in deadlock.

The negotiations, held as part of UN climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany, made scant progress as envoys representing almost 200 nations tied reforms to progress under the wider discussions and remained entrenched in diverse positions.

Essentially, this game is over.

None of the governmental and few of the institutional and individual actors who claim to fear climate change will take real steps to reduce their use of energy, choosing instead to put on phony shows of "green-ness" and carbon-trading shell games.

The Green NGOs will battle on, like those bewildered Japanese soldiers in the Pacific who didn't know that WWII had ended, but despite all the high-flown rhetoric, nobody who matters is going to do anything.

[chuckd]

Just a quick question...

If global warming/climate change/whatever is such a settled science, why do their predictions keep changing?

[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.

If you can't counter with science, then resort to jokes.

Well...you started it.

[boomerangutang]

.....and the fat lady will end it, when she starts to sing. (but does she really need to have that viking helmet, with bull horns coming out the sides?)

[dav2120]

There is climate change and there is man made climate change. I have walked through parts of Mount St. Helens. The destruction nature achieved in hours can not be matched by man. After decades both man and nature are still cleaning it up and it is not close. Nature released more green house gases in a few days than man EVER! The climate will change guaranteed. Other than a localized effect I have never seen any evidence that man is the cause.

[boomerangutang]

There is climate change and there is man made climate change. I have walked through parts of Mount St. Helens. The destruction nature achieved in hours can not be matched by man. After decades both man and nature are still cleaning it up and it is not close. Nature released more green house gases in a few days than man EVER! The climate will change guaranteed. Other than a localized effect I have never seen any evidence that man is the cause.

Welcome to ThaiVisa dav2120. Nature is powerful, fersure. Even so, humans have a significant effects on the entire planet. More earth is moved each year by humans and their machines, than all the forces of nature combined. Additionally, 7 to 10 billion tons of CO2 emitted annually by men's machines (burning fossil fuels) has widespread effects.

[RickBradford]

With global temperatures static for 18 years, political action on climate abandoned, and the consequent collapse of Green climate alarmism, dedicated activists have become free to work on other things, to spread their wings into new endeavors.

Those nice folks at Greenpeace, for example, using your kind tax-deductible donations, have turned their attention from saving whales and trees and attempted to turn themselves into Morgan Stanley or Société Générale.

As usual not letting ignorance get in their way, Greenpeace recently started currency trading, with predictable results.

Campaign group Greenpeace lost €3.8m (US$5m) after an employee took a gamble on the currency market in 2013, it has been revealed.

The employee responsible for losing the money took a gamble on the euro remaining weak against other currencies. However, the euro strengthened later in the year, resulting in the losses.

Too bad - all that cuddly koala money headed off to money heaven.

I expect there will soon be a flood of other activists orphaned by Nature's refusal to bow down to their climate hysteria, but I hope they make more realistic choices in future.

[boomerangutang]

RB, you've sure got a lot of grinding going on your axe.

I can think of many issues, both humanitarian and environmental, that are waaaaay more important (to me) than trying to poke holes in organizations which try to lessen fossil fuel use, and slow deforestation.

If there is some scamming going on with, let's say, carbon credits scheme - is that such a big deal? I think the carbon credit scheme is pretty much dead in the water. Regardless, if a person wanted to find issues which were wickedly corrupt, there are plenty worldwide which are miles more serious than carbon credits. Carbon credit scheme is probably the worst smut a Fox News fan could find on GW, and as I mentioned, it's being shown the door. Shall I make a list of really serious worldwide issues? Issues which are a thousand times more grave than the worst a GW denier could try to besmirch the GW movement with. Would you like to see the list? It's quite long. Here are some of the categories: Banking, War, rich getting rich/poor getting poorer, extreme islamists, corruption in governments, ....on and on.

[RickBradford]

I can think of many issues, both humanitarian and environmental, that are waaaaay more important (to me) than trying to poke holes in organizations which try to lessen fossil fuel use, and slow deforestation.

Would biodiversity loss be one of those issues?

Because biodiversity research is finding it increasingly hard to get funding because of the insane political War on CO2. It's so bad that biodiversity researchers are going public with their concerns.

In a paper called ‘Has Climate Change Taken Prominence over Biodiversity Conservation?' UK researchers complain that high levels of media coverage for climate change deflects attention and funding from biodiversity loss.

How to keep their research going? The only way is to manufacture some 'climate' connection.

"Conservationists must continue to be proactive, and use the growing interest in climate change as a flagship to leverage more support and action to prevent further biodiversity loss." -- Dr Zoe Davies, Senior Lecturer in Biodiversity Conservation at DICE.

In other words, the giant black hole which is 'climate' is sucking in so much funding that other environmental issues are being sidelined unless they sign up to the True Climate Faith. That will appal you if you are truly interested in the environment.

I don't blame them in the least; If I saw my funding drying up and all the money being poured down a carbon rathole, I’d try to stick my bucket in the money stream myself.

It’s just a tragedy that “science” has come to this …

RB, you've sure got a lot of grinding going on your axe.

You need a hearing aid; that's not the sound of axe grinding; it's the sound of helpless laughter at the moronic antics of the Greens.

Edited June 18, 2014 by RickBradford

[rsokolowski]

There is climate change and there is man made climate change. I have walked through parts of Mount St. Helens. The destruction nature achieved in hours can not be matched by man. After decades both man and nature are still cleaning it up and it is not close. Nature released more green house gases in a few days than man EVER! The climate will change guaranteed. Other than a localized effect I have never seen any evidence that man is the cause.

Welcome to ThaiVisa dav2120. Nature is powerful, fersure. Even so, humans have a significant effects on the entire planet. More earth is moved each year by humans and their machines, than all the forces of nature combined. Additionally, 7 to 10 billion tons of CO2 emitted annually by men's machines (burning fossil fuels) has widespread effects.

So all the erosion and sediment moved by the great rivers of the world do not equal the amount of earth moved each year by humans? Really? There is a reason that the Yellow Sea is called the Yellow Sea and it is not because of Chinese construction activities occurring in the last 50 years. CO2 is plant food, it is good and you exhale it with every single breath. The theory is that as CO2 increases the global temperature also increases. The problem with the theory is that since 1996 (18 years and counting) CO2 levels have risen, but the global average temperature has not. The theory cannot explain why observed temperature readings have not matched the computer modeled predictions (heat rises, even in the ocean and is not being stored in the deep ocean where readings are sparse as speculated in the latest IPCC report). I have a thought, maybe just maybe the computer modeled predictions are not correct and the model is not accounting properly for some aspect of the highly complex (and mostly unknown) drivers of the global climate. The bottom line is that if the global average temperature does not increase with increases in CO2 (that is the theory) then the theory needs to be reworked because it is not correct.

I am not a denier, it is just that I can spot a snake oil salesmen when I see one.

[dav2120]

On a lighter note, in California the politicians are currently trying to pass a bill to regulate, control and reuse cow farts due to their effect on global warming. Can you picture the plumbing???!! By the way I am not joking.

[attrayant]

On a lighter note, in California the politicians are currently trying to pass a bill to regulate, control and reuse cow farts due to their effect on global warming. Can you picture the plumbing???!! By the way I am not joking.

All 674 posts in this thread are neither believable nor credible unless backed up with cites that don't originate from the blogosphere. In light of that, I'm going to ask for a link to your story. A quick search turned up this nine year old article on cow pollution. But since you said "currently", I'm hoping you've got smithing a bit less stale.

As a general comment to everybody in this thread: come on people, how hard is it to paste a link to whatever source you're citing? Presumably you've just come from a web page and want to share with us its pearls of wisdom. Why not copy the link as long as you're there?

Not linking to your source means either that (1) you're ashamed that people will see what kind of a wing nut alternate-reality cuckoo web site you consider to be authoritative and trustworthy, or (2) your position and assertions aren't supported by any cite at all, and most likely originated from the seat cushions of your armchair.

[chuckd]

Opinions do not have to be supported. Facts should be.

[attrayant]

Opinions do not have to be supported. Facts should be.

I'll agree with that. Which is why I have not participated much in this thread. 99% chaff and 1% wheat. I have neither the time nor the interest in getting into a battle of opinions.

[RickBradford]

But if you'd like to point me to a quote where some group of scientists has actually said that, I'll offer my opinion on what I believe they mean.

A lame and obvious straw man.

No scientist -- no honest one, anyway, would talk about science as "settled". That's not the nature of science. Even the dishonest scientists shy away from publicly stating such an obviously anti-science statement.

Instead, the heads of some scientific groups make definite statements as though the science were settled.

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." - American Geophysical Union

"Human-induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years." - American Physical Society.

No room for debate there -- that's as close to "settled science" as you can get without actually uttering the phrase itself.

That certainty and arrogance is then passed along to various categories of rent-seekers -- politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs, journalists, professional activists, plus the generally well-meaning but bewildered.

These groups, in turn, are the ones who talk about "settled science" and suggest that anyone who opposes their position is a "flat-earther", believes the moon is made of cheese, or ideally should be branded, imprisoned, gassed or otherwise executed.

To their lasting shame, the scientists who gave rise to this kind of talk do nothing to prevent it, thus tacitly condoning it.

[Scott]

Inflammatory posts and replies have been deleted.

Please stay on topic and post in a civil manner.

[wilcopops]

Opinions do not have to be supported. Facts should be.

There is a common phrase bandied about....especially on forums such as these......"you're entitled to your own opinion "

This is of course patently nonsense. If it isn't based on some rational thought then it isn't even an opinion.

What is entitlement or opinion is never questioned so the "opinion" itself is nonsense.

In the context of a thread like this one would expect some level of back up if one is trying to make a scientific point, but many seem to think that asking for a reference is a form of argument...which is a particularly facile idea.

Edited June 20, 2014 by wilcopops

[boomerangutang]

There is climate change and there is man made climate change. I have walked through parts of Mount St. Helens. The destruction nature achieved in hours can not be matched by man. After decades both man and nature are still cleaning it up and it is not close. Nature released more green house gases in a few days than man EVER! The climate will change guaranteed. Other than a localized effect I have never seen any evidence that man is the cause.

Welcome to ThaiVisa dav2120. Nature is powerful, fersure. Even so, humans have a significant effects on the entire planet. More earth is moved each year by humans and their machines, than all the forces of nature combined. Additionally, 7 to 10 billion tons of CO2 emitted annually by men's machines (burning fossil fuels) has widespread effects.

So all the erosion and sediment moved by the great rivers of the world do not equal the amount of earth moved each year by humans? Really? There is a reason that the Yellow Sea is called the Yellow Sea and it is not because of Chinese construction activities occurring in the last 50 years.

Yes for sure, nature moves a lot of earth, .....with tides, rivers, volcanoes, earthquakes, wind. Yet humans and their machines now move more than nature, on the surface of this planet.

I can't find the original source where I read it in Discover Magazine, but here's another article mentioning the same phenomena.

Just in my one little village in Thailand, there are earth moving machines going 14 hours a day. They even set up large banks of lights so they can work until 9 pm. Multiply that by 5,000 villages, then add a few hundred towns, and a dozen big cities, and you've got an idea of what amounts of earth being scraped just in little Thailand. If you took an aerial photo of Chiang Rai today, and compared it with the same shot 2 years ago, you would see a giant swath of red clay, about 1 km wide encircling the entire city. That's all been scraped in the past 2 years - all for new construction. Again, Chiang Rai is just one small city in one small country. People have a profound cumulative effect on this planet. Weather included.

[canman]

There is climate change and there is man made climate change. I have walked through parts of Mount St. Helens. The destruction nature achieved in hours can not be matched by man. After decades both man and nature are still cleaning it up and it is not close. Nature released more green house gases in a few days than man EVER! The climate will change guaranteed. Other than a localized effect I have never seen any evidence that man is the cause.

Welcome to ThaiVisa dav2120. Nature is powerful, fersure. Even so, humans have a significant effects on the entire planet. More earth is moved each year by humans and their machines, than all the forces of nature combined. Additionally, 7 to 10 billion tons of CO2 emitted annually by men's machines (burning fossil fuels) has widespread effects.

"More earth is moved each year by humans and their machines, than all the forces of nature combined." Could you provide a souce for this please?

Frankly I find this very hard to believe but am keeping an open mind.

[chuckd]

Opinions do not have to be supported. Facts should be.

There is a common phrase bandied about....especially on forums such as these......"you're entitled to your own opinion "

This is of course patently nonsense. If it isn't based on some rational thought then it isn't even an opinion.

What is entitlement or opinion is never questioned so the "opinion" itself is nonsense.

In the context of a thread like this one would expect some level of back up if one is trying to make a scientific point, but many seem to think that asking for a reference is a form of argument...which is a particularly facile idea.

Are you claiming opinions should not be allowed on any scientifically related thread?

[RickBradford]

The Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, who believes in man-made global warming ("Global warming is real and man-made, and it needs an effective response"), nevertheless believes that the War on CO2 is the wrong way to approach the issue and a silly diversion from the real environmental problems the world faces.

"We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases; one in eight deaths stem from air pollution, mostly from cooking indoors with dung and twigs; and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food. We ought never to have entertained the notion that the world’s greatest challenge could be to reduce temperature rises in our generation by a fraction of a degree."

Of course, such heresy has not gone down well with the climate alarmists, who have queued up to attack his work in their trademark fashion.

"The text [of Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist] employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on." - Nature magazine book review.

Yup, he's a horrible "denier", for suggesting we might pay more attention to eliminating malaria or providing clean water to the world's poor.

Howard Friel, author of a book countering Lomborg's work, concurred: "I think he would be fairly classified as a climate denier."

The reason for all the vitriol seems to be that Lomborg insists on viewing climate change as a practical issue rather than as a moral crusade.

It makes one proud to be labelled a "denier".

[boomerangutang]

I heard about Lomborg and his book when it first came out, in 1998 - 16 years ago. I haven't yet read it.
From what I've heard, via critiques, shows he has creative ways of seeing challenges (Thais could learn from his 'out-of-the-box' perceptions) - he sounds quite interesting. However, like 'deniers' on this thread, he's quite selective in which stats and resources he chooses to cite. There's a thin line between taking a pure scientific approach and considering all the related data, - and having a political agenda, and just taking data which supports that. Lomborg appears to fit in the latter category.

Below is an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"On January 6, 2003, a mixed DCSD ( Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty) ruling was released, in which the Committees decided that The Skeptical Environmentalist was scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg was innocent of wrongdoing due to a lack of expertise in the relevant fields:[23]
"Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist book for:
>>> Fabrication of data;
>>> Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
>>> Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
>>> Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
>>> Plagiarism;
>>> Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

source

Edited June 20, 2014 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

The excerpt below accentuates the issue with methane releases from fossil fuels.

Robert W. Howarth, in his book; A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas, explains:

“We have to control methane immediately, and natural gas is the largest methane pollution source in the United States,” said Howarth, who explains in an upcoming journal article that Earth may reach the point of no return if average global temperatures rise by 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius in future decades. “If we hit a climate-system tipping point because of methane, our carbon dioxide problem is immaterial. We have to get a handle on methane, or increasingly risk global catastrophe.”

Natural gas – that once seemingly promising link between the era of oil and coal to the serenity of sustainable solar, wind and water power – is a major source of atmospheric methane, due to widespread leaks as well as purposeful venting of gas. Howarth points to “radiative forcing,” a measure of trapped heat in Earth’s atmosphere from man-made greenhouse gases. The current role of methane looms large, he says, contributing over 40 percent of current radiative forcing from all greenhouse gases, based on the latest science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The role of methane as a driver of global warming is even more critical than this 40 percent value might indicate, Howarth notes. The climate system responds much more quickly to reducing methane than to carbon dioxide. If society aggressively controlled carbon dioxide emissions, but ignored methane emissions, the planet would warm to the dangerous 1.5 to 2.0 degree Celsius threshold within 15 to 35 years. By reducing methane emissions, society buys some critical decades of lower temperatures.

source

[RickBradford]

Well spotted that Lomborg was ruled by the DCSD in early 2003 to have written material "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

If you had a smidgin of intellectual honesty you would have included the part where that decision was overturned, and Lomborg exonerated, later that year.

Bjorn Lomborg, the author of a controversial book attacking the environment movement, was cleared yesterday of "scientific dishonesty" by the Danish science ministry. In its report, the ministry criticised the [DCSD] committee for failing to provide evidence either that Mr Lomborg had been biased in his selection of data or that his methodology had been dubious.

It also said the committee's judgment had used "condescending and emotional" language. And it was a "clear mistake" that the committee had failed to give Mr Lomborg an opportunity to defend himself before publishing its judgment.

But then again, it is the default Left/Green position is that it is far better to sacrifice millions of poor people today, in order (so they say) to avert unspecified and unknown consequences to people who might be born in 50 or 100 years' time.

It is not a position I can share.

[snarky66]

This whole hoax notion just highlights the danger of "group think" & the inability of the hoaxers to think for themselves. They remind me of chicken little. Let me get my umbrella.

[Patron]

Ya know, I posted here about record low temperatures where I live and many people bashed me.

And all I did was answer the Op's question ..How has global warming raised temps in your hometown?

We had a record breaking cold winter. The pro Climate Control people were all over me.

You cannot change the facts....OK...

So now where I'am now living in N.America we have broken all the record rainfall records

in recorded history for the month of June,and there is more coming this way according

to the radar maps.The record rainfall records were set in the 1800'S.

Climate Controll people.....WHATS THIS ABOUT...ooh by the way.....74f and T-shirt perfect..LOL

[RickBradford]

You cannot change the facts....OK...

Are you kidding? There are sections of the climate change community that do little else than change the facts (and then tell the press they have discovered global warming).

Take the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), for example.

First, they take the raw US temperature data, which shows the inconvenient truth that the 1930s were the hottest decade on record, and that the US has been cooling ever since.

They then pass that data through various filters and 'adjustments' -- MMTS, SHAP, FILNET, TOBS -- and suddenly, a graph which was showing mild cooling is now showing significant warming. In the last 100 years, about 1C of warming 'adjustments' have been added to the 'official' temperature record.

Temperature hockey sticks are indeed man-made – by climate activists pretending to be scientific heads of government agencies. That's how lucrative careers are made.

[ExpatOilWorker]

You cannot change the facts....OK...

Are you kidding? There are sections of the climate change community that do little else than change the facts (and then tell the press they have discovered global warming).

Take the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), for example.

First, they take the raw US temperature data, which shows the inconvenient truth that the 1930s were the hottest decade on record, and that the US has been cooling ever since.

They then pass that data through various filters and 'adjustments' -- MMTS, SHAP, FILNET, TOBS -- and suddenly, a graph which was showing mild cooling is now showing significant warming. In the last 100 years, about 1C of warming 'adjustments' have been added to the 'official' temperature record.

Temperature hockey sticks are indeed man-made by climate activists pretending to be scientific heads of government agencies. That's how lucrative careers are made.

I am doing CO2 injection into oil wells at the moment and though I was doing good and then you come and tell me it is all a lie?

I better go back and burn some more fuel.