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

[kieran2698]

It can't be that hard to just look at the period before the industrial revolution instead of starting right at the height of it though, can it?

Q1: When was "the height" of the industrial revolution, in your opinion?

Q2: Having looked at the graph, answer Q1 again.

It is generally accepted that humanity's industrial actions (in terms of CO2 emissions) cannot have impacted the climate until 1950, when the CO2 emissions really take off.

We therefore see temperature trends before humanity's influence (1860-1880,1910-1940) which are identical to those after humanity's alleged influence (1975-1988, 1975-2009).

These simple data suggest, therefore, that humanity's influence on temperature is negligible.

In real life, the situation is rather more complicated, but that's the bare bones of it.

Regrettably, very few politicians, journalists or activists are able, or willing, to comprehend this.

Very few would trust any data produced by a fuel company such as you have provided.

By the way, coal power alone produces 23 billion tonnes, far more than on BP's graph.

Temperature's increased from the beginning of the industrial revolution until the mini ice age, then increased until today, now surpassing temperatures of the last thousand years.

Why not post a graph of the same period showing temp increase?

Besides, it is more probable that cfc's are the cause, take a look at a comparison of CFC immission and temperature.

Can't take you serious if you can't provide any data or links, all I see is your say so.

Nice try, you could just do a little reading though. As I previously stated, I am using a phone and unable to post. Try searching for CFC emission vs temperature and see what comes up, you will see that the recent slight decrease in temperature coincides with the decline of CFC use, backing up the theory that the principal cause of the last century was CFCs. Edited December 6, 2014 by kieran2698

[canuckamuck]

The thing is I have already done my research and I know that the things you are trying to prove ie CO2 just isn't supported by the data.

I am not going to go and research it all over again just to help you make a point.

The CFC emission scenario is quite different from the debate about CO2, and if you want to discuss CFC's as a possible warming agent, you will find that I agree, it cannot be discounted however that the recent warming is not statistically different than any other part of history where the earth is warming from a major ice age. So if there is a bogeyman, it is only a sidekick to natural warming.

[thaibeachlovers]

What some don't like to admit is that humans are no more likely to survive than the dinosaurs, and have to blame something for our probable demise. So they blame man caused carbon emissions, conveniently overlooking other sources such as forest fires and volcanoes, and wobble about imposing taxes and building windmills etc. The cause of excessive man made emissions is overpopulation, but no politician is going to admit that, as they would become unpopular if they did anything about it.

IMO, mankind is as doomed as the dinosaurs, given that he has become a parasite on the planet, we just don't know when. 50 years, 5,000 years, it doesn't matter, we will be history, so just enjoy the ride and stop raving about hybrid cars and windmills etc saving the planet, as they won't save us.

[wilcopops]

What some don't like to admit is that humans are no more likely to survive than the dinosaurs, and have to blame something for our probable demise. So they blame man caused carbon emissions, conveniently overlooking other sources such as forest fires and volcanoes, and wobble about imposing taxes and building windmills etc. The cause of excessive man made emissions is overpopulation, but no politician is going to admit that, as they would become unpopular if they did anything about it.

IMO, mankind is as doomed as the dinosaurs, given that he has become a parasite on the planet, we just don't know when. 50 years, 5,000 years, it doesn't matter, we will be history, so just enjoy the ride and stop raving about hybrid cars and windmills etc saving the planet, as they won't save us.

now i think you need to brush up on theories of evolution and rates of extinction.

You might also try to explain how this fits in with your argument against the science of human induced climate change.

[thaibeachlovers]

What some don't like to admit is that humans are no more likely to survive than the dinosaurs, and have to blame something for our probable demise. So they blame man caused carbon emissions, conveniently overlooking other sources such as forest fires and volcanoes, and wobble about imposing taxes and building windmills etc. The cause of excessive man made emissions is overpopulation, but no politician is going to admit that, as they would become unpopular if they did anything about it.

IMO, mankind is as doomed as the dinosaurs, given that he has become a parasite on the planet, we just don't know when. 50 years, 5,000 years, it doesn't matter, we will be history, so just enjoy the ride and stop raving about hybrid cars and windmills etc saving the planet, as they won't save us.

now i think you need to brush up on theories of evolution and rates of extinction.

You might also try to explain how this fits in with your argument against the science of human induced climate change.

?????? I would have thought that my post made it clear that I believe that humans have become parasites on the planet, and that if we continue to overpopulate the planet, laying waste to everything ,Gaia will destroy us through natural means, not man made ones.

theories of evolution and rates of extinction.

?????? I thought the argument the man made climate change supporters are using was that man will kill the planet if he doesn't put up taxes and build more windmills.

rates of extinction

Man has killed off hundreds of species, and nothing to do with nature.

[RickBradford]

so just enjoy the ride and stop raving about hybrid cars and windmills etc saving the planet, as they won't save us.

Unfortunately, our influential people (politicians, bureaucrats etc) are far too busy pursuing their lifetime vanity projects to be able to just "enjoy the ride".

They have to keep proving to themselves how "noble" they are, and fantasies about "saving the planet" fit the bill admirably. The entire climate scare would never have emerged, but for their relentless narcissism.

As Alston Chase observed: “When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”

[boomerangutang]

What some don't like to admit is that humans are no more likely to survive than the dinosaurs, and have to blame something for our probable demise. So they blame man caused carbon emissions, conveniently overlooking other sources such as forest fires and volcanoes, and wobble about imposing taxes and building windmills etc. The cause of excessive man made emissions is overpopulation, but no politician is going to admit that, as they would become unpopular if they did anything about it.

IMO, mankind is as doomed as the dinosaurs, given that he has become a parasite on the planet, we just don't know when. 50 years, 5,000 years, it doesn't matter, we will be history, so just enjoy the ride and stop raving about hybrid cars and windmills etc saving the planet, as they won't save us.

Let's give dinos their due. They lasted tens of millions of years, albeit with lots of variations. The large land animals which preceded the dinos lasted about 17 million years - until the Permian extinction. Modern-like people have been around about a quarter of a million years. They'll last a few thousand more years, at best, and may spread their chromosomes to other planets/solar systems. Likelihood? I'd venture a guess of 1 in 20, that we'd be able to successfully jump ship before it's too late. Actually, there would be some pockets of people who could survive on a seriously polluted Earth (underground, with filtered air?). It makes for interesting sci-fi plots.

[canuckamuck]

Human politics will either extinguish us or knock us back to small populations long before we have to worry about the climate.

The next 100 years will not pass without a world war.

[RickBradford]

Remember what the comedian George Carlin said:

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages ... And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

[RickBradford]

The thing that most characterises the Green/Left is its moralistic arrogance and its disdain for anyone else, even those who it might be thought to be in sympathy, ie ancient indigenous cultures in developing countries.

So this week, in its attempts to coerce people into ramping up the war on CO2, the wretched Greenpeace has desecrated more sacred cultural monuments, this time in Peru, plastering a huge banner over the fragile 2000-year-old World Heritage Site known as the Nazca Lines.

Blind to anyone's else's concerns, but critically involved with their own egos, 20 Greenpeace activists tramped all over a site where entry is strictly prohibited, to paste a lame message about renewal energy.

The damage to the fragile site is irreversible, according to furious Peruvian officials: "What they have done is an attack on a site that is one of the most fragile in the world," said cultural official Luis Jaime Castillo. "You walk there and the footprint is going to last hundreds or thousands of years."

Greenpeace's response is what you would expect -- mealy-mouthed and self-exculpatory.

"[We are] deeply concerned about any offense Peruvians may have taken."

May have taken?

The message is clear. Environmental activists are willing to break laws and stomp all over the most sacred places because they think they walk on higher ground.

No wonder every right-thinking person is sick of them.

[chuckd]

Here's a real knee slapper just in time for the UN Conference in Peru.

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

'Climate Change’ Ranks Dead Last in United Nations' Own Survey

December 10, 2014 - 4:04 PM

By Barbara Hollingsworth

CNSNews.com) – Delegates from 190 nations attending the United Nations’ summit in Lima, Peru this week are pushing for “net zero emissions” and “full decarbonization by 2050” to battle climate change.

But more than seven million people who responded to a recent U.N. global survey ranked climate concerns at the very bottom of their priorities.

“A good education” topped the 16-item priority list in all demographic and geographic categories, followed by “better healthcare,” “better job opportunities,” and “an honest and responsive government.”

Read more here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-change-ranks-dead-last-united-nations-own-survey

UN report found here: http://data.myworld2015.org/

Edited December 12, 2014 by chuckd

[RickBradford]

^^^

Climate change is not only bottom of the pile; it has somehow got Lost in Lima.

As The Guardian's correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg sobbed from the COP20 meeting on Thursday:

Oh noes, where is climate change? Is it hiding somewhere in The Pause? Buried in the deep ocean?

I see The Guardian has now amended it to "fight", leaving it open as to whether it was a strange typo or a superb Freudian slip by the overwrought Ms Goldenberg.

What climate change alarmism really needs is a stake and a mallet.

Edited December 13, 2014 by RickBradford

[thaibeachlovers]

Sorry, changed my mind about that one.

Edited December 14, 2014 by thaibeachlovers

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Are u really going to present a graph of 40 years to claim manmade global warming? Oh please.

Let's at least push it out to 30,000 and preferably millions of year.

[boomerangutang]

Are u really going to present a graph of 40 years to claim manmade global warming? Oh please.

Let's at least push it out to 30,000 and preferably millions of year.

You could be defeating your own statement. 40 years is relevant to the topic. A whole heck of a lot of fossil fuel has been burned in the past 40 years, and the 40 years preceding that (which would affect the ensuing years.) Similar to how the residual effects of fossil fuel burned now, is going to affect the planet in ensuing years.

When did fossil fuels start to be burned? Around the time oil drilling began in earnest (the first was 1859 in Pennsylvania).

Do the same people who try to disprove GW also enjoy the yellow haze which covers Beijing and hundreds of other large cities worldwide?

Edited December 15, 2014 by boomerangutang

[canuckamuck]

Well half of the last 40 years have shown no change, despite increases in CO2. We have been around this bush more than a few times eh?

[boomerangutang]

Well half of the last 40 years have shown no change, despite increases in CO2. We have been around this bush more than a few times eh?

Wrong. There have been unprecedented spikes in warming around the globe. Many 'warmest ever recorded' records are announced, nearly everywhere, year by recent year. If a person doesn't want to see the data, it won't be seen by that person.

[canuckamuck]

We are climbing out of an Ice age, of course we are seeing the highest temps now. What is amazing is that some of those records from decades ago still stand.

[wilcopops]

to sum up - man-made climate change is a reality, those who don't agree are deluding themselves by clinging to old and outdated science........ end of.

[boomerangutang]

We are climbing out of an Ice age, of course we are seeing the highest temps now. What is amazing is that some of those records from decades ago still stand.

Wrong. 13 of the 14 all-time-highest temps recorded were within the past 20 years. I don't have the precise data source here at my fingertips, but you can find in via Google.

[canuckamuck]

I am not disagreeing with you , I said "of course we are seeing the highest temperatures now". After an ice age things get warmer, that is how it works.

[boomerangutang]

I am not disagreeing with you , I said "of course we are seeing the highest temperatures now". After an ice age things get warmer, that is how it works.

Perhaps so, yet the rate of warming is accelerated by fossil fuel burning by humans, and what we've seen in recent decades will pale compared to the heat increases expected in coming decades. Then if/when the seas increase by a few degrees, it's likely massive amounts of methane under the sea will un-freeze and bubble up to the atmosphere. Even deniers can agree that methane is a lot more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. That's when things get a lot hotter, seas rise a lot more, and deserts increase their borders considerably more than the changes we've seen lately.

[wilcopops]

I am not disagreeing with you , I said "of course we are seeing the highest temperatures now". After an ice age things get warmer, that is how it works.

Do you seriously think that this hasn't been taken into account? that only YOU thought of this? I think you seriously underestimate the thinking behind this topic.....even though the answer is simple - man made climate change is just about as near to fact as science allows.

Edited December 16, 2014 by wilcopops

[canuckamuck]

I am not disagreeing with you , I said "of course we are seeing the highest temperatures now". After an ice age things get warmer, that is how it works.

Do you seriously think that this hasn't been taken into account? that only YOU thought of this? I think you seriously underestimate the thinking behind this topic.....even though the answer is simple - man made climate change is just about as near to fact as science allows.

My old friend Wilco. I wonder if you could help me point out the strawman in your argument. And if you like you can also explain the phrase, "as close to fact as science allows". Does it mean, not a fact as in, not a real thing?

[thaibeachlovers]

Well half of the last 40 years have shown no change, despite increases in CO2. We have been around this bush more than a few times eh?

Wrong. There have been unprecedented spikes in warming around the globe. Many 'warmest ever recorded' records are announced, nearly everywhere, year by recent year. If a person doesn't want to see the data, it won't be seen by that person.

Well it is unusually cold for this time of year where I am in New Zealand. So much for global warming- I'd appreciate a bit of warming, instead of shivering in front of the heater.

[Thai at Heart]

Are u really going to present a graph of 40 years to claim manmade global warming? Oh please.

Let's at least push it out to 30,000 and preferably millions of year.

You could be defeating your own statement. 40 years is relevant to the topic. A whole heck of a lot of fossil fuel has been burned in the past 40 years, and the 40 years preceding that (which would affect the ensuing years.) Similar to how the residual effects of fossil fuel burned now, is going to affect the planet in ensuing years.

When did fossil fuels start to be burned? Around the time oil drilling began in earnest (the first was 1859 in Pennsylvania).

Do the same people who try to disprove GW also enjoy the yellow haze which covers Beijing and hundreds of other large cities worldwide?

In the total history of the movmement of the environment, 40 years is an insultingly small timeframe to measure.

We may as well discuss the weather yesterday on the average. When iceages are measured in millions to hundreds of thousands of years and the ppm of co2 has fluctuated massively, postulating that 100 years of mans contribution is that significant it a very dangerous policy.

[wilcopops]

I am not disagreeing with you , I said "of course we are seeing the highest temperatures now". After an ice age things get warmer, that is how it works.

Do you seriously think that this hasn't been taken into account? that only YOU thought of this? I think you seriously underestimate the thinking behind this topic.....even though the answer is simple - man made climate change is just about as near to fact as science allows.

My old friend Wilco. I wonder if you could help me point out the strawman in your argument. And if you like you can also explain the phrase, "as close to fact as science allows". Does it mean, not a fact as in, not a real thing?

sadly your comments reveal you don't understand the first thing about scientific argument and proof.

[wilcopops]

Are u really going to present a graph of 40 years to claim manmade global warming? Oh please.

Let's at least push it out to 30,000 and preferably millions of year.

You could be defeating your own statement. 40 years is relevant to the topic. A whole heck of a lot of fossil fuel has been burned in the past 40 years, and the 40 years preceding that (which would affect the ensuing years.) Similar to how the residual effects of fossil fuel burned now, is going to affect the planet in ensuing years.

When did fossil fuels start to be burned? Around the time oil drilling began in earnest (the first was 1859 in Pennsylvania).

Do the same people who try to disprove GW also enjoy the yellow haze which covers Beijing and hundreds of other large cities worldwide?

In the total history of the movmement of the environment, 40 years is an insultingly small timeframe to measure.

We may as well discuss the weather yesterday on the average. When iceages are measured in millions to hundreds of thousands of years and the ppm of co2 has fluctuated massively, postulating that 100 years of mans contribution is that significant it a very dangerous policy.

...and this just shows how limited your perception is.

[canuckamuck]

I am not disagreeing with you , I said "of course we are seeing the highest temperatures now". After an ice age things get warmer, that is how it works.

Do you seriously think that this hasn't been taken into account? that only YOU thought of this? I think you seriously underestimate the thinking behind this topic.....even though the answer is simple - man made climate change is just about as near to fact as science allows.

My old friend Wilco. I wonder if you could help me point out the strawman in your argument. And if you like you can also explain the phrase, "as close to fact as science allows". Does it mean, not a fact as in, not a real thing?

sadly your comments reveal you don't understand the first thing about scientific argument and proof.

I knew your resonse would be something along the lines of " you're so dumb". So I know something about your level of scientific argument.

[boomerangutang]

"The latest word from scientists studying the Arctic is that the polar region is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. And researchers say the trend isn't letting up. That's the latest from the 2014 Arctic Report Card — a compilation of recent research from more than 60 scientists in 13 countries. The report was released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

Then there's Greenland. The giant land mass is covered in ice that's a mile thick. GeophysicistBeata Csatho at the University of Buffalo has just completed the most comprehensive satellite survey of that ice cover. "There are some places," she says, "where in the last 20 years the ice surface is just lowering, lowering, lowering very uniformly."

source: US's National Public Radio