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

[kieran2698]

Thanks for the info. Please stop using the term "global warming". "climate change" is the term most suitable. As soon as there is unseasonaly cold weather the nae sayers say "so much for global warming"

I read somewhere there was once an 'Ice Age' and the world has been warming up ever since with some fluctuations over time, the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

Geologists call this process climate change.

Yes, but the last 100 years of climate change has not been in line with the previous centuries, an almost certain man made increase.

[Maestro]

26 November 2014 Last updated at 01:12 GMT

Geo-engineering: Climate fixes 'could harm billions'

By David Shukman

Science editor, BBC News

Schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for billions of people, but might be required for the good of the planet, scientists say.

That is the conclusion of a new set of studies into what's become known as geo-engineering.

This is the so far unproven science of intervening in the climate to bring down temperatures.

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30197085

-- BBC 2014-11-26

[boomerangutang]

I am 100% against geo-engineering. It's akin to someone in a neighborhood who likes a particular odor (patchouli, for example), so he takes it upon himself to spray the entire neighborhood with that smell, every day. Thais already do something similar with sound. There's a new wat at my village, and the headman broadcast chants, starting at 4:20 am - for everyone in a 20 sq.Km radius (even tho most of the residents are Christian hill tribers).

Australia has tried several times to geo-engineer (or bio-engineer) their continent, and it always creates more problems than existed before. The introduction of the cane toad is just one example there.

[kieran2698]

I am 100% against geo-engineering. It's akin to someone in a neighborhood who likes a particular odor (patchouli, for example), so he takes it upon himself to spray the entire neighborhood with that smell, every day. Thais already do something similar with sound. There's a new wat at my village, and the headman broadcast chants, starting at 4:20 am - for everyone in a 20 sq.Km radius (even tho most of the residents are Christian hill tribers).

Australia has tried several times to geo-engineer (or bio-engineer) their continent, and it always creates more problems than existed before. The introduction of the cane toad is just one example there.

I didn't realise the Cane Toad was introduced on purpose, reminded of the Malaysian Oil Palm wildlife misshaps. The Oil Palm, itself an introduced species, proved to be a breeding ground for native poisonous spiders which kept biting the workers. The short sighted plantation owners imported a bird to eat the spiders. This backfired as now snakes have moved in to eat the birds and these now bite the workers instead. When we will learn? Not yet anyway, as I have heard of a few stories or potential bio engineering projects recently.

[thaibeachlovers]

26 November 2014 Last updated at 01:12 GMT

Geo-engineering: Climate fixes 'could harm billions'

By David Shukman

Science editor, BBC News

Schemes to tackle climate change could prove disastrous for billions of people, but might be required for the good of the planet, scientists say.

That is the conclusion of a new set of studies into what's become known as geo-engineering.

This is the so far unproven science of intervening in the climate to bring down temperatures.

Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30197085

-- BBC 2014-11-26

Well, if it ends up killing off billions of people I guess it'll work, as less people = less pollution. Bit more drastic than a program of sterilization after people have one child though.

And, what happens if it brings in a "the day after" ice age?

Sounds like a desperate scheme to protect the 1% at the expense of poor people, as who cares if they starve? Anyway, guess who'll be footing the bill!

It's time the politicians wise up and admit that the cause of the problems we face is out of control human overpopulation, and do something about it, but they are far too gutless to do so.

[thaibeachlovers]

Thanks for the info. Please stop using the term "global warming". "climate change" is the term most suitable. As soon as there is unseasonaly cold weather the nae sayers say "so much for global warming"

I read somewhere there was once an 'Ice Age' and the world has been warming up ever since with some fluctuations over time, the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

Geologists call this process climate change.

Yes, but the last 100 years of climate change has not been in line with the previous centuries, an almost certain man made increase.

So, if that's the case, why aren't the world leaders calling for population control?

[kieran2698]

Thanks for the info. Please stop using the term "global warming". "climate change" is the term most suitable. As soon as there is unseasonaly cold weather the nae sayers say "so much for global warming"

I read somewhere there was once an 'Ice Age' and the world has been warming up ever since with some fluctuations over time, the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

Geologists call this process climate change.

Yes, but the last 100 years of climate change has not been in line with the previous centuries, an almost certain man made increase.

So, if that's the case, why aren't the world leaders calling for population control?

Why population control, why not the emissions control they do call for?

[lovetotravel]

Thanks for the info. Please stop using the term "global warming". "climate change" is the term most suitable. As soon as there is unseasonaly cold weather the nae sayers say "so much for global warming"

I read somewhere there was once an 'Ice Age' and the world has been warming up ever since with some fluctuations over time, the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

Geologists call this process climate change.

Yes, but the last 100 years of climate change has not been in line with the previous centuries, an almost certain man made increase.

So, if that's the case, why aren't the world leaders calling for population control?

Here's a list of the top 10 countries by population:

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats8.htm

Only 2 stand out as really being active with regards to population control. Or pollution control. The top 2 are some of the worst contributors to global pollution.

Religion also gets in the way. Asia as a continent has some 50% of the worlds population. Africa is next largest. Good luck getting these guys to agree on anything. Africa has soooo many problems.

[thaibeachlovers]

I read somewhere there was once an 'Ice Age' and the world has been warming up ever since with some fluctuations over time, the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

Geologists call this process climate change.

Yes, but the last 100 years of climate change has not been in line with the previous centuries, an almost certain man made increase.

So, if that's the case, why aren't the world leaders calling for population control?

Why population control, why not the emissions control they do call for?

Because until the population falls, nothing will work. Humans have already destroyed most of the accessible fertile land, so what's going to happen when the population adds another couple of billion?

Population drives atrocities like the destruction of Borneo Orangutan habitat to grow oilpalm. Is your soap worth the extinction of Orangutans?

Mankind has become a parasite on the planet, and is killing it. A few windmills aren't going to fix that.

[thaibeachlovers]

I read somewhere there was once an 'Ice Age' and the world has been warming up ever since with some fluctuations over time, the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

Geologists call this process climate change.

Yes, but the last 100 years of climate change has not been in line with the previous centuries, an almost certain man made increase.

So, if that's the case, why aren't the world leaders calling for population control?

Here's a list of the top 10 countries by population:

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats8.htm

Only 2 stand out as really being active with regards to population control. Or pollution control. The top 2 are some of the worst contributors to global pollution.

Religion also gets in the way. Asia as a continent has some 50% of the worlds population. Africa is next largest. Good luck getting these guys to agree on anything. Africa has soooo many problems.

Looks like Japan is doing something right.

Unfortunately, the countries expecting significant growth already can't support their populations.

[canuckamuck]

Thanks for the info. Please stop using the term "global warming". "climate change" is the term most suitable. As soon as there is unseasonaly cold weather the nae sayers say "so much for global warming"

I read somewhere there was once an 'Ice Age' and the world has been warming up ever since with some fluctuations over time, the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

Geologists call this process climate change.

Yes, but the last 100 years of climate change has not been in line with the previous centuries, an almost certain man made increase.

I would like to see your evidence for that claim.

[kieran2698]

Thanks for the info. Please stop using the term "global warming". "climate change" is the term most suitable. As soon as there is unseasonaly cold weather the nae sayers say "so much for global warming"

I read somewhere there was once an 'Ice Age' and the world has been warming up ever since with some fluctuations over time, the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

Geologists call this process climate change.

Yes, but the last 100 years of climate change has not been in line with the previous centuries, an almost certain man made increase.

I would like to see your evidence for that claim.

There is loads of data available, take a look at temperature increases per decade, there has been a marked increase since the height of the industrial revoultion and another larger increase since the 1970's.

[RickBradford]

... take a look at temperature increases per decade, there has been a marked increase since the height of the industrial revoultion and another larger increase since the 1970's.

Simply untrue.

Take a look at temperature increases over the past century or so

Period years +C/decade

1860-1880 21 0.163

1910-1940 31 0.15

1975-1998 24 0.166

1975-2009 35 0.161

(Source: BBC, from the IPCC)

The BBC's Roger Harrabin quizzed Professor Phil Jones of the Climategate Research Unit at UEA about these figures:

Harrabin: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Jones: The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

The idea that global warming is somehow 'accelerating' has been disowned by everybody who has examined the data objectively. In particular, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, there has been no global warming for over 18 years. For the numerically challenged, that is a trend of 0.00C per decade.

Only Greenpeace, and a few other hopeless cases, still cling to the idea of accelerated warming.

Edited November 27, 2014 by RickBradford

[boomerangutang]

I can't stand the heat, so I gotta get outta da kitchen.

[thaibeachlovers]

... take a look at temperature increases per decade, there has been a marked increase since the height of the industrial revoultion and another larger increase since the 1970's.

Simply untrue.

Take a look at temperature increases over the past century or so

Period years +C/decade

1860-1880 21 0.163

1910-1940 31 0.15

1975-1998 24 0.166

1975-2009 35 0.161

(Source: BBC, from the IPCC)

The BBC's Roger Harrabin quizzed Professor Phil Jones of the Climategate Research Unit at UEA about these figures:

Harrabin: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Jones: The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

The idea that global warming is somehow 'accelerating' has been disowned by everybody who has examined the data objectively. In particular, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, there has been no global warming for over 18 years. For the numerically challenged, that is a trend of 0.00C per decade.

Only Greenpeace, and a few other hopeless cases, still cling to the idea of accelerated warming.

People like politicians "believe" it because it gives them an excuse to raise taxes, not that the money is used to reduce pollution, of course. If they really believed in it, they might do something realistic like providing more public transport and penalising private car use, plus introduce population control, not compete to see who can pay the most for people to have children.

[kieran2698]

... take a look at temperature increases per decade, there has been a marked increase since the height of the industrial revoultion and another larger increase since the 1970's.

Simply untrue.

Take a look at temperature increases over the past century or so

Period years +C/decade

1860-1880 21 0.163

1910-1940 31 0.15

1975-1998 24 0.166

1975-2009 35 0.161

(Source: BBC, from the IPCC)

The BBC's Roger Harrabin quizzed Professor Phil Jones of the Climategate Research Unit at UEA about these figures:

Harrabin: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Jones: The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

The idea that global warming is somehow 'accelerating' has been disowned by everybody who has examined the data objectively. In particular, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, there has been no global warming for over 18 years. For the numerically challenged, that is a trend of 0.00C per decade.

Only Greenpeace, and a few other hopeless cases, still cling to the idea of accelerated warming.

As I said there has been a marked increase at the time of the industrial revolution and in the 70's, both of these increases are on your data but of course nothing to compare with as you chose to look at the period starting at the increase. Now look at temperature increases before this period.

[craigt3365]

Interesting report on weather in Australia:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-30225276

Australia has always suffered from bouts of extreme hot weather but the number and intensity of heatwaves is on the rise, prompting a rethink of how the country lives, works and plays in the sun.

Some like it hot, but the 13-day stretch of weather exceeding 40C in Longreach that ended last week was some of the hottest weather in living memory for the Queensland town.

It was also a new heat wave record for the cattle country town, beating the previous record by four days, according to Australia's Bureau of Meteorology (BoM).

[wilcopops]

... take a look at temperature increases per decade, there has been a marked increase since the height of the industrial revoultion and another larger increase since the 1970's.

Simply untrue.

Take a look at temperature increases over the past century or so

Period years +C/decade

1860-1880 21 0.163

1910-1940 31 0.15

1975-1998 24 0.166

1975-2009 35 0.161

(Source: BBC, from the IPCC)

The BBC's Roger Harrabin quizzed Professor Phil Jones of the Climategate Research Unit at UEA about these figures:

Harrabin: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Jones: The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

The idea that global warming is somehow 'accelerating' has been disowned by everybody who has examined the data objectively. In particular, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, there has been no global warming for over 18 years. For the numerically challenged, that is a trend of 0.00C per decade.

Only Greenpeace, and a few other hopeless cases, still cling to the idea of accelerated warming.

No it hasn't - you simply have the wrong end of the stick.

[cooked]

Dear God I wish I could stop myself coming back to this bickerfest.

Sent from my GT-S7500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[thaibeachlovers]

... take a look at temperature increases per decade, there has been a marked increase since the height of the industrial revoultion and another larger increase since the 1970's.

Simply untrue.

Take a look at temperature increases over the past century or so

Period years +C/decade

1860-1880 21 0.163

1910-1940 31 0.15

1975-1998 24 0.166

1975-2009 35 0.161

(Source: BBC, from the IPCC)

The BBC's Roger Harrabin quizzed Professor Phil Jones of the Climategate Research Unit at UEA about these figures:

Harrabin: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Jones: The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

The idea that global warming is somehow 'accelerating' has been disowned by everybody who has examined the data objectively. In particular, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, there has been no global warming for over 18 years. For the numerically challenged, that is a trend of 0.00C per decade.

Only Greenpeace, and a few other hopeless cases, still cling to the idea of accelerated warming.

No it hasn't - you simply have the wrong end of the stick.

OK, let's assume that the pro warming crowd are correct, and that man made pollution is going to exterminate mankind. If politicians know that, wouldn't they be doing something that actually stopped pollution?

Instead, they just put on taxes and do nothing that would make a real difference. Does that make sense?

If Merkel really believes carbon raises temperature, why is Germany going away from nuclear power plants? Why haven't the Japanese restarted their nuclear power plants instead of using carbon burning power plants?

Why is China exempt from carbon reduction targets?

Why are petrol cars still being sold?

Why is global air travel not being curtailed?

I find it hard to believe that politicians actually believe in warming, as they are just giving lip service to alternatives.

[wilcopops]

Take a look at temperature increases over the past century or so

Period years +C/decade

1860-1880 21 0.163

1910-1940 31 0.15

1975-1998 24 0.166

1975-2009 35 0.161

(Source: BBC, from the IPCC)

The BBC's Roger Harrabin quizzed Professor Phil Jones of the Climategate Research Unit at UEA about these figures:

Harrabin: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

Jones: The warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

The idea that global warming is somehow 'accelerating' has been disowned by everybody who has examined the data objectively. In particular, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, there has been no global warming for over 18 years. For the numerically challenged, that is a trend of 0.00C per decade.

Only Greenpeace, and a few other hopeless cases, still cling to the idea of accelerated warming.

No it hasn't - you simply have the wrong end of the stick.

OK, let's assume that the pro warming crowd are correct, and that man made pollution is going to exterminate mankind. If politicians know that, wouldn't they be doing something that actually stopped pollution?

Instead, they just put on taxes and do nothing that would make a real difference. Does that make sense?

If Merkel really believes carbon raises temperature, why is Germany going away from nuclear power plants? Why haven't the Japanese restarted their nuclear power plants instead of using carbon burning power plants?

Why is China exempt from carbon reduction targets?

Why are petrol cars still being sold?

Why is global air travel not being curtailed?

I find it hard to believe that politicians actually believe in warming, as they are just giving lip service to alternatives.

your logic is demonstrative of your general lack of ability for critical thinking in particular on this subject.

[RickBradford]

Does the forum have no way of blocking these spambot-generated one-liners?

[thaibeachlovers]

Take a look at temperature increases over the past century or so

Period years +C/decade

1860-1880 21 0.163

1910-1940 31 0.15

1975-1998 24 0.166

1975-2009 35 0.161

(Source: BBC, from the IPCC)

The BBC's Roger Harrabin quizzed Professor Phil Jones of the Climategate Research Unit at UEA about these figures:

The idea that global warming is somehow 'accelerating' has been disowned by everybody who has examined the data objectively. In particular, as has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread, there has been no global warming for over 18 years. For the numerically challenged, that is a trend of 0.00C per decade.

Only Greenpeace, and a few other hopeless cases, still cling to the idea of accelerated warming.

No it hasn't - you simply have the wrong end of the stick.

OK, let's assume that the pro warming crowd are correct, and that man made pollution is going to exterminate mankind. If politicians know that, wouldn't they be doing something that actually stopped pollution?

Instead, they just put on taxes and do nothing that would make a real difference. Does that make sense?

If Merkel really believes carbon raises temperature, why is Germany going away from nuclear power plants? Why haven't the Japanese restarted their nuclear power plants instead of using carbon burning power plants?

Why is China exempt from carbon reduction targets?

Why are petrol cars still being sold?

Why is global air travel not being curtailed?

I find it hard to believe that politicians actually believe in warming, as they are just giving lip service to alternatives.

your logic is demonstrative of your general lack of ability for critical thinking in particular on this subject.

Is that your way of not answering the question?

[lovetotravel]

more food for thought.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/parts-of-antarctica-melting-much-faster-than-previously-thought/

[thaibeachlovers]

more food for thought.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/parts-of-antarctica-melting-much-faster-than-previously-thought/

What is not mentioned is that if it gets warm enough in Antarctica, it will start to snow there. At present it doesn't snow. The snow already there has been there for hundreds or thousands of years and just blows around.

If it does begin to snow, the amount of precipitation may equal the rate of loss of ice.

When I was there, we had an air humidifier in the sleeping quarters because the air was too dry for comfort.

[lovetotravel]

Another report from BBC:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30311816

World on course for warmest year

[boomerangutang]

Just for fun, let's look back a looooooong time, about 286 million years ago, waaaaaaay before dinosaurs. Back then there was, what's been described as, the biggest mass extinction this planet has experienced. Over 90% of species died. First, land species due to heat, then sea species, also due to heat. Then, even more land species went extinct, due to even warmer temps. It all lasted a relatively brief time of around 200,000 years. None of it human-caused, ha ha. Scientists think it was first triggered with extreme/protracted lava flows + CO2 releases in the Siberian region. Then, when the seas warmed up 5 degrees from that, vast amounts of frozen methane was released which exacerbated the greenhouse effect, which pushed temps up a further 5 degrees.

Now, fast-forward to present times. Temps have gone up near 1 degree on average ww, in the past 50 years. There are mass amounts of frozen methane under the oceans. If further warming occurs, of air/land/sea, that could then trigger massive methane releases, thereby pumping temps up further. Methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas (15 to 1) than CO2. Currently, methane releases in places like the permafrost in arctic regions are showing increases year by year. If you don't want to believe little 'ol me, go and google it.

Edited December 4, 2014 by boomerangutang

[RickBradford]

Happy Anniversary, Penny!

It is five years to the day since noted astronomer Penny Sackett, in her position as Chief Scientist of Australia (ie main advisor to government), told the press:

"We’ve got 5 years to save world, says Australia’s chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett

"The planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist. Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint."

Well, we didn't. Time's up. So if you really believe the catastrophic warnings, now's the time to start making your plans while reciting "Woe is me! for I am undone."

Penny's "Five Years to Save the Planet" is a cover version of Prince Charles' flop "less than 100 months to act to save the planet" and Bill McGuire's "7 years to save the planet" from mid-2008,

None of these activists seem capable of grasping one simple fact of human nature -- repetitive agit-prop turns people off. Nobody likes being hectored. The more the activists drool with the rabies of climate alarmism, the less people listen.

Even the Millerites and Harold Camping had better audiences for their catastrophic predictions.

The next Day of Judgement is Bill "Eve of Destruction" McGuire's in mid-2015.

[wilcopops]

Happy Anniversary, Penny!

It is five years to the day since noted astronomer Penny Sackett, in her position as Chief Scientist of Australia (ie main advisor to government), told the press:

"We’ve got 5 years to save world, says Australia’s chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett

"The planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist. Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint."

Well, we didn't. Time's up. So if you really believe the catastrophic warnings, now's the time to start making your plans while reciting "Woe is me! for I am undone."

Penny's "Five Years to Save the Planet" is a cover version of Prince Charles' flop "less than 100 months to act to save the planet" and Bill McGuire's "7 years to save the planet" from mid-2008,

None of these activists seem capable of grasping one simple fact of human nature -- repetitive agit-prop turns people off. Nobody likes being hectored. The more the activists drool with the rabies of climate alarmism, the less people listen.

Even the Millerites and Harold Camping had better audiences for their catastrophic predictions.

The next Day of Judgement is Bill "Eve of Destruction" McGuire's in mid-2015.

RB - I'm sure you are a relatively alert person, but have you not noticed the KIND of people who are supporting your ideas on this thread? Doesn't that concern you?

e.g. - If I found myself in a room full of nutters and found myself agreeing with them, I'd be seriously concerned about my own perspective on life.

[RickBradford]

RB - I'm sure you are a relatively alert person, but have you not noticed the KIND of people who are supporting your ideas on this thread? Doesn't that concern you?

Not at all. Their views are their own, individual opinions. Some I agree with, some I don't. Indeed, I agree with some of the points put forward by people who don't support my ideas on this thread.

My interest is the science and policy surrounding climate change, as I see and interpret it.

Skeptics are like that; we like to form our own opinions from reading multiple sources, not blindly follow some self-appointed higher authority, however "noble" the cause may appear to be.

This is purely an opinion, but I think it is a mistake to believe anything so fervently that you feel you must support it 100%, agree with everyone else who supports it, and oppose anyone who does not support it. To my mind, that is cultism.

Or, in the words of Ken Wilber: "Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time."