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

[canuckamuck]

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

The University of East Anglia has released an interactive Google Earth layer with local temperature data

Dana Nuccitelli Tuesday 4 February 2014 13.00 GMT

theguardian.com

If you've ever wondered how much global warming has raised local temperatures in your area or elsewhere on the globe, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (UEA CRU) has just released a new interactive Google Earth layer that will let you answer this question with ease. UEA CRU is one of the scientific organizations that compile temperature data from around the world. Their temperature dataset over land is called CRUTEM4, and is one of the most widely used records of the climate system.

The new Google Earth format allows users to scroll around the world, zoom in on 6,000 weather stations, and view monthly, seasonal and annual temperature data more easily than ever before. Users can drill down to see some 20,000 graphs some of which show temperature records dating back to 1850.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/04/global-warming-google-earth-uea

-- The Guardian 2014-02-04

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"

Sent from my KFTT using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Lets not call it global warming nor climate change.

Lets call it WEATHER.

It's funny when people say don't call it global warming, call it climate change. That makes no sense at all. The alarmists are worried about global temperature increase are they not? Yes I know that in popular alarmist theory some places get cooler, as a result of warming, but the reason is still the warming is it not? it is still the warming they want to avoid right?

Of course it is a bit embarrassing that the warming topped out, but hey, it is not officially cooling yet either.

[boomerangutang]

Lets not call it global warming nor climate change. Lets call it WEATHER.

If a volcano erupts, instead of calling it an eruption, we can call it 'heat' or 'pressure release'. Semantics.

Everyone knows weather is mutable. One prime issue is trends - which may cause significant changes on the surface of the planet. Changes in habitat, which effect species' survival, which can also affect people in big ways. A trend which forces tens of millions of people to flee from coastal cities and/or desert regions - is significant. They've got to go someplace, so it has impacts - on the environment, and other people. It's already happening to a relatively small degree: Large fence between ever-flooding Bangladesh and NE India. Compounded misery in S.Sudan and other Saharan places where desertification is spreading each day. Increasing tons of dust blowing on to Beijing from the spreading Gobi desert.

If an observer chooses to pay it no mind, that's his/her choice. If a person chooses to deny or explain-away the global trend of rising temps and seas, that's also that person's choice. It's easy to live in a selfish cocoon.

There is nothing unusual about what is happening with the weather. It has been hotter in the past and cooler. Therehas been more CO2 and less CO2. Etc..etc..etc.

People have always been affected by weather and always will. The difference is that now the global warming propaganda machine has whipped people up into such a frenzy that they are fooled into believing that ANY weather event is caused by AGW.

It get warmer in the coming years...it could get cooler (as quite a few scientists are now starting to predict).

A warmer world would kill a lot fewer people than one going into another ice age.

Comparing a warmer world with another ice age, is like comparing a bruised knee with a fractured pelvis. One sounds relatively mild, the other is severe. GW'ers aren't contesting the fact that there have been profound climate swings in the past, along with CO2 releases of varying degrees. The issue revolves around people and other species. Only in the past several hundred years have human populations skyrocketed, as we're such a dominant species. Concurrently, numerous other species have gone extinct, and climate is changing faster than it would if humans were not polluting so vigorously.

Personally, I think Earth, its species, and it's cleanliness quotient can benefit by having 80% less people. But from a people-centric position (which nearly all people adhere to) large numbers of people immigrating, and/or suffering and dying - paints a sad picture.

[Johpa]

There is nothing unusual about what is happening with the weather. It has been hotter in the past and cooler. There has been more CO2 and less CO2. Etc..etc..etc.

You are simply incorrect. The advent of burning oil for power has unleashed significantly higher levels of CO2 into the atmosphere than existed previously. All the graphs show the trend beginning in the late 19th century, exactly when the industrial age began. The acceleration of global warming, the trend, is indeed highly unusual. The fact that there gave been time periods in the past when climate changed is not relevant to the current change.

[Gulfsailor]

There is nothing unusual about what is happening with the weather. It has been hotter in the past and cooler. There has been more CO2 and less CO2. Etc..etc..etc.

You are simply incorrect. The advent of burning oil for power has unleashed significantly higher levels of CO2 into the atmosphere than existed previously. All the graphs show the trend beginning in the late 19th century, exactly when the industrial age began. The acceleration of global warming, the trend, is indeed highly unusual. The fact that there gave been time periods in the past when climate changed is not relevant to the current change.

Don't say someone is incorrect without reading into the subject. Yes current CO2 levels are nearly twice as high than in 1900. But only about 20% of that extra CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. Deforestation plays a much bigger role, as trees trap the CO2 from the athmosphere. But most importantly there were times in history when CO2 level were many times higher than now. Around 1900 was an all time low looking at the past 0.5 billion years. It came down from over 7000 parts per million back then, to around 200 a century ago, and now is back up to around 400.

That all said. The biggest mistake being made in my opinion is that many great climate scientist may have mixed up cause and effect when comparing past CO2 levels and past temperatures. New statistic studies are finding a very high confidence that the cause is temperature rise and the effect CO2 rise. Not the other way around.

Knowing this it then becomes perfectly understandable why global temperatures haven't risen in the past 17 years while man was continuing to help increase athmospheric CO2 levels during that time.

And then it begs the question; what did cause the rapid increase in temperature in the previous century. The answer might well be the amount of CFC's in the athmosphere. The same stuff that was ruining our ozon later, but was banned in most uses, thus significantly reducing human release of CFC's into the athmosphere since late last century. It perfectly aligns with the halt in rising temperatures since then. There have been models created to test this new theory, and results are incredibly accurate looking at the past. Now we just need to check the next 1 or 2 decades to get irrefutable proof that current model can predict the future. Something the IPCC models failed miserably at.

[canman]

There is nothing unusual about what is happening with the weather. It has been hotter in the past and cooler. There has been more CO2 and less CO2. Etc..etc..etc.

You are simply incorrect. The advent of burning oil for power has unleashed significantly higher levels of CO2 into the atmosphere than existed previously. All the graphs show the trend beginning in the late 19th century, exactly when the industrial age began. The acceleration of global warming, the trend, is indeed highly unusual. The fact that there gave been time periods in the past when climate changed is not relevant to the current change.

So why hasn't the "trend" kept pace over the last 15 years? CO2 has increased significantly in the last 15 years yet the temperatures have not.

By the way correlation does not equal causation. I could graph the come back of whale populations since the whaling industry was banned against the rise in temperature and see a similar correlation; ergo the whales are responsible for climate change; kill them all!

[boomerangutang]

Knowing this it then becomes perfectly understandable why global temperatures haven't risen in the past 17 years while man was continuing to help increase athmospheric CO2 levels during that time.

stating that 'global temperatures haven't risen in the past 17 years' is completely wrong. It started with people like Roger Ailes (who owns and controls FOX News). They're proof of the axiom: "If you repeat a lie often and intensely enough, lots of people will believe it."

Like the truism; 'the Great Wall of China can be seen from outer space.' It can't.

If I had the riches and influence of right-winger Ailes, I could get many people to believe 'hairy arms are the result of eating too much Cheerios.'

[canman]

Knowing this it then becomes perfectly understandable why global temperatures haven't risen in the past 17 years while man was continuing to help increase athmospheric CO2 levels during that time.

stating that 'global temperatures haven't risen in the past 17 years' is completely wrong. It started with people like Roger Ailes (who owns and controls FOX News). They're proof of the axiom: "If you repeat a lie often and intensely enough, lots of people will believe it."

Like the truism; 'the Great Wall of China can be seen from outer space.' It can't.

If I had the riches and influence of right-winger Ailes, I could get many people to believe 'hairy arms are the result of eating too much Cheerios.'

A more relevant scale graph showing actuals over recent times tells a differant story. I'm not positive but I don't think Roger had anything to do with the graph below.

[chuckd]

When all sensible arguments fail...blame Fox News.

[tartempion]

Common, what a load of crap.

We all know, WE, the human species are the most intelligent people in all the universe and we are so brilliant that only God knows a bit more and we are so good that it must be clear to any intelligentsia that we take utmost care of our little planet (as a good father) to protect our future generations from any harm or misdoing.

Amen.

I do believe, considering the sheer size of solar systems, galaxies, universe that out little planet is meaningless in the shape of things, we are less than grains of sand.

Just live your life and continue the destruction of our species...

[RickBradford]

If I had the riches and influence of right-winger Ailes, I could get many people to believe 'hairy arms are the result of eating too much Cheerios.'

If you want riches and influence to peddle a particular agenda, you would do much better to join one of the wealthy NGOs like WWF or Greenpeace, or even better, the European Union, which has recently announced it is "creating a new €864 million sub-programme for climate action" to ram down the throats of its 300 million citizens.

I doubt that Ailes can claim a fraction of those riches and influence.

The Green/Left's rationalization of opposition to their War on Carbon is quite something to behold.

First, skeptics cannot just be wrong, they must be actively evil (and hence ripe for silencing, branding, gassing, and execution).

Second, there can't be many of them, because of the claimed huge consensus in favour of 'climate action'. And because the skeptics keep winning all the important battles, that small cabal of evil skeptics must be enormously rich and influential. There is a simpler answer, but the Green/Left will never see it.

And as for the 17-year pause being "completely wrong", well, even the UK's Met Office, a cheerleader for climate alarmism, has conceded 15 years, and only balks at 17 because 1998 was such a hot year and thus a bad starting point for trend analysis. Many of the major temperature datasets show more than 17 years of zero warming.

[boomerangutang]

Deniers' arguments are getting a bit soggier and shrill with each passing day. Grasping at straws, perchance?

[chuckd]

Here's a little "straw grasping" honed to its finest degree:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBS BLAMES GLOBAL WARMING FOR BAD WINTER

by WARNER TODD HUSTON 13 Feb 2014

During the February 13 broadcast of CBS This Morning, host Charlie Rose and his guest turned to the topic of this year's harsh winter, calling the extreme cold an example of global warming.

Guest Michio Kaku, a physics professor from New York City College--not a climatologist, but a physicist--claimed that the "wacky weather" could get "even wackier" and its all because of global warming. "What we're seeing is that the jet stream and the polar vortex are becoming unstable. Instability of historic proportions. We think it's because of the gradual heating up of the North Pole. The North Pole is melting," professor Kaku said.

"That excess heat generated by all this warm water is destabilizing this gigantic bucket of cold air... So that's the irony, that heating could cause gigantic storms of historic proportions," the prof explained.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/13/Horrible-Winter-CBS-Says-Blame-Global-Warming

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weather isn't the only thing that is "wacky" in this one.

[RickBradford]

Yeah, that's the wacky world of climate 'science', all right.

If climate theory disagrees with reality, then it's reality that has to give way.

It's just like that bloke Harold Camping, who predicted that the Earth's righteous would be saved, and the world destroyed, on May 21,2011 and then emerged unscathed from his home on May 22, announcing he had recast the bones, and October 21 was the real date. On October 22, he ..... etc etc etc.

[Credo]

Yeah, that's the wacky world of climate 'science', all right.

If climate theory disagrees with reality, then it's reality that has to give way.

It's just like that bloke Harold Camping, who predicted that the Earth's righteous would be saved, and the world destroyed, on May 21,2011 and then emerged unscathed from his home on May 22, announcing he had recast the bones, and October 21 was the real date. On October 22, he ..... etc etc etc.

But eventually, one day, he might just get it right....I mean the destruction part, not about the righteous being saved.

[boomerangutang]

Yeah, that's the wacky world of climate 'science', all right.

If climate theory disagrees with reality, then it's reality that has to give way.

It's just like that bloke Harold Camping, who predicted that the Earth's righteous would be saved, and the world destroyed, on May 21,2011 and then emerged unscathed from his home on May 22, announcing he had recast the bones, and October 21 was the real date. On October 22, he ..... etc etc etc.

I don't know who Harold Camping is, but I know a lot of folks like him. Heavily in to metaphysics and self-righteousness. Espousing silly notions a mile a minute. Harmonic Convergence, Branch Davidians, Jonestown, Shinawatres flying jets to go visit fortune tellers, Nancy Reagan and her resident astrologist, Ron Reagan and his Star Wars, The Pope talking of the 2nd coming, .....there is no dearth of whackos out there. Who spiked the cool-aid?

[canuckamuck]

You forgot Global Warming apocalypsists.

[boomerangutang]

You forgot Global Warming apocalypsists.

Yes, there are probably whachos on both sides of the GW debate. However, if GW are right, then there are dire scenarios coming forth in the next decades. Possiblities:

>>>> Hurricanes which make Katrina and Sandy look like dust devils

>>>> The only dry land in Bangladesh, will be a boxed garden on the 9th floor of an apartment building.

>>>> Bangkok, Shanghai, Miami, Manhattan, and dozens of other big cities with year 'round standing water.

>>>> Hordes of immigrants moving - wherever they can - maybe setting up a tent city in your backyard.

>>>> Nearly all large wild mammals extinct.

And there are those who can abide by any of the above, and more. We can call it the 'Nero Syndrome' For Nero, it was fiddling while Rome burned. For GW deniers, it will likely be chatting online while the planet goes pear-shaped in a haze of smust (smog + dust).

[RickBradford]

All of those hysteria-driven scenarios have been bruited around before, and none of them has shown any signs of coming true.

As a case in point, the UN predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010, fleeing a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production. In fact, there were no refugees at all.

So, what are we actually getting from the hand-wringing demon-haunted climate policies?

>>>> Destruction of millions of hectares of primary rainforest to grow biofuels for an immeasurably trivial reduction in CO2 emissions.

>>>> Significant increases in food prices resulting from large areas of land being removed from food production in order to grow uneconomic subsidised biofuels, with the direct consequence of an increase in malnutrition, especially in underdeveloped countries dependent on staple food imports.

>>>> An estimated 20 million people robbed of their lands and forced into poverty as conservation refugees. After millennia of harmonious co-existence with their natural environment they have been driven out to "protect" it.

>>>> Increases in fuel poverty among the poor even in advanced economies, causing misery and death.

>>>> Innumerable rare raptors and bats cut up by wind turbines or fried by solar towers

>>>> Even in developed countries, multitudes of honest, productive families of small farmers, stockmen and fishermen have also been stripped of a long-standing sustainable livelihood, to pander to the uninformed notions of green urbanites.

The Green/Left predicts awful catastrophe in future, and works tirelessly to bring it about in the present.

[Credo]

All of those hysteria-driven scenarios have been bruited around before, and none of them has shown any signs of coming true.

As a case in point, the UN predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010, fleeing a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production. In fact, there were no refugees at all.

So, what are we actually getting from the hand-wringing demon-haunted climate policies?

>>>> Destruction of millions of hectares of primary rainforest to grow biofuels for an immeasurably trivial reduction in CO2 emissions.

>>>> Significant increases in food prices resulting from large areas of land being removed from food production in order to grow uneconomic subsidised biofuels, with the direct consequence of an increase in malnutrition, especially in underdeveloped countries dependent on staple food imports.

>>>> An estimated 20 million people robbed of their lands and forced into poverty as conservation refugees. After millennia of harmonious co-existence with their natural environment they have been driven out to "protect" it.

>>>> Increases in fuel poverty among the poor even in advanced economies, causing misery and death.

>>>> Innumerable rare raptors and bats cut up by wind turbines or fried by solar towers

>>>> Even in developed countries, multitudes of honest, productive families of small farmers, stockmen and fishermen have also been stripped of a long-standing sustainable livelihood, to pander to the uninformed notions of green urbanites.

The Green/Left predicts awful catastrophe in future, and works tirelessly to bring it about in the present.

I wonder what the former inhabitants of Atlantis would have to say about all this.

[teatree]

There is nothing unusual about what is happening with the weather. It has been hotter in the past and cooler. There has been more CO2 and less CO2. Etc..etc..etc.

You are simply incorrect. The advent of burning oil for power has unleashed significantly higher levels of CO2 into the atmosphere than existed previously. All the graphs show the trend beginning in the late 19th century, exactly when the industrial age began. The acceleration of global warming, the trend, is indeed highly unusual. The fact that there gave been time periods in the past when climate changed is not relevant to the current change.

Wrong. CO2 has been many times the level it is today and it has never driven climate.

This plain to see in the ice core data.

Edited February 16, 2014 by teatree

[boomerangutang]

I made a conditional statement, using the word "if...."

RB countered with an absolutist statement "none of them (statements) has shown any signs of coming true...."

Curious that someone can be so certain about something as mutable as future weather, how much is human-exacerbated, and responses by groups of humans - who are compelled to move en masse to other places.

Regarding refugees: We hear every day about refugee issues: In the Americas, In Africa, In Europe, In Asia, In Australia, in the Middle East. The stories appear to be getting more dire with each passing month. Who can say with a straight face that they're not at least partially in response to severe weather events. If the Sahara were not spreading by miles per month, there wouldn't be such human misery there. If Bangladeshis weren't flooded out of their villages, there wouldn't be such a need for a massive exclusion fences in northeastern India. The Middle East suffers sustained problems on many levels. It can be said, particularly by armchair philosophers, that those issues would be happening regardless of whether there are human-exacerbated heating of the planet. Well,,,, that's what this debate is about.

[boomerangutang]

Wrong. CO2 has been many times the level it is today and it has never driven climate.

This plain to see in the ice core data.

CO2 has risen and fallen historically, and it does affect climate considerably. Whether climate is 'driven' (your word) by it, is debatable. but it can create a 'greenhouse effect' - though about 1/8 as effectively as methane. Edited February 16, 2014 by boomerangutang

[FiftyTwo]

I made a conditional statement, using the word "if...."

RB countered with an absolutist statement "none of them (statements) has shown any signs of coming true...."

Curious that someone can be so certain about something as mutable as future weather, how much is human-exacerbated, and responses by groups of humans - who are compelled to move en masse to other places.

Regarding refugees: We hear every day about refugee issues: In the Americas, In Africa, In Europe, In Asia, In Australia, in the Middle East. The stories appear to be getting more dire with each passing month. Who can say with a straight face that they're not at least partially in response to severe weather events. If the Sahara were not spreading by miles per month, there wouldn't be such human misery there. If Bangladeshis weren't flooded out of their villages, there wouldn't be such a need for a massive exclusion fences in northeastern India. The Middle East suffers sustained problems on many levels. It can be said, particularly by armchair philosophers, that those issues would be happening regardless of whether there are human-exacerbated heating of the planet. Well,,,, that's what this debate is about.

Probably more to do with foreign aid and war.

Lots of agencies feeding the kids, then dumping them as adults. Too many adults + too little food = problem.

Then you have arms dealers selling to the tribal gangs, not enough real wars in the world.

Africa and India have always been a bit of a basket case.

Floods in Bangladesh, one of the first news reports I can remember as a kid, that was 50 years ago.

[RickBradford]

If the Sahara were not spreading by miles per month, there wouldn't be such human misery there.

Actually, if you trouble to read the voluminous published science on the subject, you will discover that the Sahara is shrinking (the Greening of the Sahara, it's called), the decrease being attributed to ... global warming.

The idea is that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, leading to more rain ( the same argument is being used to try to blame the current UK floods on global warming), and hence a greening, helped by the extra CO2 in the atmosphere which enables plants to grow better in arid conditions.

As for the Australian refugee situation, the idea that this is somehow climate-driven is beyond absurd. Who leaves Afghanistan or Pakistan or Somalia because of climatic issues and winds up on a boat off the shore of northern Australia? Don't you think they might settle in one of a dozen countries on the way (and closer to home) with agreeable climates? Can you think of any extra quality Australia might possess which induces these people to risk their lives to get there?

[ExpatOilWorker]

If the Sahara were not spreading by miles per month, there wouldn't be such human misery there.

Actually, if you trouble to read the voluminous published science on the subject, you will discover that the Sahara is shrinking (the Greening of the Sahara, it's called), the decrease being attributed to ... global warming.

The idea is that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, leading to more rain ( the same argument is being used to try to blame the current UK floods on global warming), and hence a greening, helped by the extra CO2 in the atmosphere which enables plants to grow better in arid conditions.

As for the Australian refugee situation, the idea that this is somehow climate-driven is beyond absurd. Who leaves Afghanistan or Pakistan or Somalia because of climatic issues and winds up on a boat off the shore of northern Australia? Don't you think they might settle in one of a dozen countries on the way (and closer to home) with agreeable climates? Can you think of any extra quality Australia might possess which induces these people to risk their lives to get there?

Recent signals indicate that the Sahara and surrounding regions are greening because of increased rainfall. Satellite imaging shows extensive regreening of the Sahel between 1982 and 2002, and in both Eastern and Western Sahara a more than 20-year-long trend of increased grazing areas and flourishing trees and shrubs has been observed by climate scientist Stefan Kröpelin.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

[boomerangutang]

If the Sahara were not spreading by miles per month, there wouldn't be such human misery there.

Actually, if you trouble to read the voluminous published science on the subject, you will discover that the Sahara is shrinking (the Greening of the Sahara, it's called), the decrease being attributed to ... global warming.

The idea is that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, leading to more rain ( the same argument is being used to try to blame the current UK floods on global warming), and hence a greening, helped by the extra CO2 in the atmosphere which enables plants to grow better in arid conditions.

As for the Australian refugee situation, the idea that this is somehow climate-driven is beyond absurd. Who leaves Afghanistan or Pakistan or Somalia because of climatic issues and winds up on a boat off the shore of northern Australia? Don't you think they might settle in one of a dozen countries on the way (and closer to home) with agreeable climates? Can you think of any extra quality Australia might possess which induces these people to risk their lives to get there?

Am not saying climate change is necessarily the primary factor re; mass immigration, but it is one of the main factors. Those countries mentioned above have suffered from deforestation and desertification brought on largely by changing weather patterns coupled with human overpopulation. If places like Afghanistan or Somalia had green pastures with good soil, and ample year 'round water - there would be lower numbers of people desperate to leave. And sure, Australia is mostly dry rocky desert, but there are social machinations which enable poor immigrants to live better lives. There are many factors which compel people to move to places they think are better. Warming climactic shifts, larger and direr deserts or increased flooding are just some of them. We're the most roving large species in Earth's history.

Edited February 17, 2014 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

description of brief video shows;

".....how changing rainfall patterns together with increasingly intensive land use have combined to contribute to desertification in the Sahel region of Africa. It shows the location of the Sahara Desert and the Sahel region within Africa and looks at the changing patterns of rainfall in the last 50 years or so. It goes on to show how the need for fuelwood and cattle grazing has led to the spread of the desert. It finishes with images of before-and-after scenarios and an animation of the southward spread of the desert." source

[Scott]

When there is a scarcity of resources, whether it is land, water or food, there is often conflict and then people migrate. The causes may vary.

It's probably not going to be something that we can easily attribute to one things or another that would be relevant to this thread.

[Thaiready]

Global Warming..BS.....you must work for Al Gore.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Thaiready

[gazzasore]

My understanding is there is no Global warming Its a Made up thing by people that want to make Money from it

Have you noticed they don't call it Global warming any more Its now known as Climate Change

Many others are saying we are in the clinch of a Mini Ice Age

There is much info here These guys ( http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/ ) have a daily news on Youtube its very informative including when the world is likely to have large Earth Quakes etc

And the Solar shut down of the Sun etc