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

[wilcopops]

Ah, yes. The arrogance of mankind. Can mankind, or its' wastes affect the weather? Go back thousands of years, instead of hundreds. What will you see?

There's that big yellow thing you see in the sky called the sun. Nothing to do with mankind, this global warming, or cooling, or whatever is in vogue at the moment. Anyone can make statistics show whatever they want.

Mother Earth can take whatever puny little men throw at her and keep spinning away.

It is likely to keep spinning, just with nothing on it though.

[canuckamuck]

It hasn't warmed in recent years, but it is warmer than 50 years ago. So you see continued evidence of a warmer climate but that is not evidence of increased warming in the last two decades.

Yes there is! that 19 year thing was actually misreported. read earlier posts for references.

So lazy Wilco, like usual. are you allergic to proving any of your claims?

Read earlier posts

[thaibeachlovers]

Honestly, how can anyone take anything this guy says seriously? A person who is now described as oil industry shill spouting his propaganda and lies for the oil industry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/michael-crichton-the-oil-_b_15430.html

Hey, be nice to the oil industry or you can sit in the dark, take cold showers and start to walk to work.

Without the oil industry most people would be dead.

Imagine trying to survive winter in N. America or N. Europe without oil and the electricity that comes from it.

that's why they are advocating non-fossil fuels.

Indeed, they have a perfectly viable, proven form of power generation, but politicians won't use it. Strange, as they are the ones wanting to cut down on the use of oil. Could that be because they don't actually believe that GW is real, and are just using it to raise taxes?

[boomerangutang]

"While I agree that glaciers are melting because of global warming, if this is because of man, then what was the reason for the melting of the glaciers in the Gondwana period long before man arrived on the planet?" asked Dhruv Sen Singh, Centre of Advanced Study in Geology, University of Lucknow.

That's like a fireman looking at a house burning down, and a passer by asks him, "was the fire started by a person?"

Fireman: "Houses have burned down before, and the fires weren't always started by a person."

[canuckamuck]

So you are saying there are different reasons for warming and the previous glacial melt was caused by something other than CO2?

[boomerangutang]

So you are saying there are different reasons for warming and the previous glacial melt was caused by something other than CO2?

Climate is complicated. I wouldn't doubt CO2 was a contributing factor in prior meltings. CO2 is again a factor. How much COs emitted by human activity (mostly burning of that finite resource: fossil fuels) is a big part of the debate. Some of the same CO2 emitting dynamisms are in play today as were millenia ago, such as volcanoes, but the difference currently is the immense amount of CO2 emitted by humans and their machines (average 1 ton/annually per person). That's nearly 7 billion tons/yr, and rising. CO2 is the precurser of a cycle which could portend the release of tons of methane, now most frozen in the depths of the ocean. Approx 5 degrees increase will likely trigger that. When methane releases start snowballing, then another 5 degrees of heating, and that's where things get mighty hot worldwide. Beach front property in Chiang Mai, with cacti growing happily all around. Another factor is the time frame. In ancient times, warming trends happened over millenia. Now it's happening in decades.

[canuckamuck]

So you are saying there are different reasons for warming and the previous glacial melt was caused by something other than CO2?

Climate is complicated. I wouldn't doubt CO2 was a contributing factor in prior meltings. CO2 is again a factor. How much COs emitted by human activity (mostly burning of that finite resource: fossil fuels) is a big part of the debate. Some of the same CO2 emitting dynamisms are in play today as were millenia ago, such as volcanoes, but the difference currently is the immense amount of CO2 emitted by humans and their machines (average 1 ton/annually per person). That's nearly 7 billion tons/yr, and rising. CO2 is the precurser of a cycle which could portend the release of tons of methane, now most frozen in the depths of the ocean. Approx 5 degrees increase will likely trigger that. When methane releases start snowballing, then another 5 degrees of heating, and that's where things get mighty hot worldwide. Beach front property in Chiang Mai, with cacti growing happily all around. Another factor is the time frame. In ancient times, warming trends happened over millenia. Now it's happening in decades.

Nope.

It is not warming faster than at other times in history. Please prove otherwise.

[thaibeachlovers]

So you are saying there are different reasons for warming and the previous glacial melt was caused by something other than CO2?

Climate is complicated. I wouldn't doubt CO2 was a contributing factor in prior meltings. CO2 is again a factor. How much COs emitted by human activity (mostly burning of that finite resource: fossil fuels) is a big part of the debate. Some of the same CO2 emitting dynamisms are in play today as were millenia ago, such as volcanoes, but the difference currently is the immense amount of CO2 emitted by humans and their machines (average 1 ton/annually per person). That's nearly 7 billion tons/yr, and rising. CO2 is the precurser of a cycle which could portend the release of tons of methane, now most frozen in the depths of the ocean. Approx 5 degrees increase will likely trigger that. When methane releases start snowballing, then another 5 degrees of heating, and that's where things get mighty hot worldwide. Beach front property in Chiang Mai, with cacti growing happily all around. Another factor is the time frame. In ancient times, warming trends happened over millenia. Now it's happening in decades.

So why are NO politicians calling for a reduction in population?

Why are they allowing illegal immigrants to swell the carbon producing populations?

Why are they not converting to nuclear power production?

All three options are doable and would reduce carbon increase, but they don't even discuss it.

[canman]

So you are saying there are different reasons for warming and the previous glacial melt was caused by something other than CO2?

Climate is complicated. I wouldn't doubt CO2 was a contributing factor in prior meltings. CO2 is again a factor. How much COs emitted by human activity (mostly burning of that finite resource: fossil fuels) is a big part of the debate. Some of the same CO2 emitting dynamisms are in play today as were millenia ago, such as volcanoes, but the difference currently is the immense amount of CO2 emitted by humans and their machines (average 1 ton/annually per person). That's nearly 7 billion tons/yr, and rising. CO2 is the precurser of a cycle which could portend the release of tons of methane, now most frozen in the depths of the ocean. Approx 5 degrees increase will likely trigger that. When methane releases start snowballing, then another 5 degrees of heating, and that's where things get mighty hot worldwide. Beach front property in Chiang Mai, with cacti growing happily all around. Another factor is the time frame. In ancient times, warming trends happened over millenia. Now it's happening in decades.

Some relevant facts:

CO2 comprises less than 0.04% of air. that’s less than 4 x 1/100th’s of one percent. (Actually

0.0385%)

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/esrl/co2/img/img_mlo_co2_recent.Gif

http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/alanjones/20110527-aj2-timothyball.mp3

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

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

Of Earth’s annual production of CO2, humans produce just 3%, Nature 32 times more,

97%.

http://www.eia.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf

The variation alone in Nature’s production of CO2 is estimated to be four times the entire

human production. We are not affecting the balance.

Professor Tim Ball, quoted in ‘Climate: the Counter Consensus’ by Professor Bob Carter,

palaeoclimatologist, page 74

1

[boomerangutang]

Let's assume the 3% might be true, 3% can have an effect, in terms of climate. Let's assume Hurricane Katrina was 3% stronger, for example. Or if the flooding in Bangkok, in 2008 was 3% more severe.

[boomerangutang]

So why are NO politicians calling for a reduction in population?

Why are they allowing illegal immigrants to swell the carbon producing populations?

Why are they not converting to nuclear power production?

All three options are doable and would reduce carbon increase, but they don't even discuss it.

Good questions. I can't speak for politicians, except to say they're doing/saying what they think they need to do/say in order to get/stay in power and make more money. Advocating less population growth is rarely good for a political gain. If there's mention of population numbers, among politicians, it's usually wanting more births, because they're hoping younger workers will pay into funds to support retired folks. Politicians, like most people, think in the near term and what benefits them/their families directly, rather than long-term and what's good for the health of the planet as a whole.

Immigrants are going to exist, whether they stay in their countries of origin or in London. Granted, if living in London, even in a tiny flat, they're likely to consume more energy, than in Somalia. Lessening human population growth should be the biggest political/social issue of this century. The one best thing a person can do to lessen pollution, is to have less kids. I got my tubes tied (after making two babies). If I hadn't, I would have possibly made half a dozen more kids, with as many women. Many others, of both sexes have had their tubes tied. The surgery should be offered, free-of-charge, by every gov't ww - for anyone over 21, along with counseling(to make sure they individually choose it). 2nd best would be free condoms, available everywhere. Along with that, free access to education for girls. Numerous studies have shown that, the better educated a girl is, the less likely she'll pop out babies like a pop-tart factory.

Edited January 12, 2015 by boomerangutang

[canman]

Let's assume the 3% might be true, 3% can have an effect, in terms of climate. Let's assume Hurricane Katrina was 3% stronger, for example. Or if the flooding in Bangkok, in 2008 was 3% more severe.

CO2 is .0385% of the atmosphere and humans contribute 3% of that. If my math is correct (and I'll admit it may not be, feel free to check) 3% X .0385% = 0.00001155%

So the human contribution to the atmosphere in terms of CO2 is .00001155% of the total atmosphere. If the floods in Bangkok or an hurricane was .0000115% stronger than I would challenge you to find a method to measure that change.

[Maestro]

Climate change: Who's ready and who's not?

By Dan Satherley, Online Reporter Wednesday 14 Jan 2015 9:11 a.m.

New Zealand is well-placed to deal with the effects of climate change, behind only Norway, according to a new ranking of the world's ability to adapt.

The University of Notre Dame in Indiana compiled the new list, which puts New Zealand and Scandinavian countries at the top and sub-Saharan African countries at the bottom.

The rankings reflect a combination of the preparations each country has made and how vulnerable they are, in terms of their location and climate. Factors taken into account include reliability of safe drinking water, crop yields, infrastructure and heatwave hazards.

Read more (with map): http://www.3news.co.nz/sport/generosity-keeps-teens-league-dream-alive-2015011319

-- 3 News 2015-01-14

[canuckamuck]

That link is no good, but the premise of climate change preparedness is quite amusing. Considering the incredibly slow time scale temperature changes. And also no one knows if it is going to go up some more or are we gonna head back down.

[boomerangutang]

re; post# 1035: I have opined on similar ideas in prior posts. In my view, the countries best placed for handling a warmer planet with higher seas are (in no particular order):

New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Argentina, Russia, USA

On the other end of the scale, there's Bangladesh, China's coast, Nigeria, Florida (ok, not a country), Thailand, most small islands, India, Belize, Saharan regions.

- methinks Maestro's link is wrong -

Edited January 14, 2015 by boomerangutang

[Bakeman]

No such thing and it's all one big lie. The earth is going through its own cycles. I do believe in living green though. Waste not want not and all that.

[boomerangutang]

No such thing and it's all one big lie. The earth is going through its own cycles. I do believe in living green though. Waste not want not and all that.

....and nearly all the world's largest glaciers are receding in length and bulk is a lie too?

[thaibeachlovers]

Climate change: Who's ready and who's not?

By Dan Satherley, Online Reporter Wednesday 14 Jan 2015 9:11 a.m.

New Zealand is well-placed to deal with the effects of climate change, behind only Norway, according to a new ranking of the world's ability to adapt.

The University of Notre Dame in Indiana compiled the new list, which puts New Zealand and Scandinavian countries at the top and sub-Saharan African countries at the bottom.

The rankings reflect a combination of the preparations each country has made and how vulnerable they are, in terms of their location and climate. Factors taken into account include reliability of safe drinking water, crop yields, infrastructure and heatwave hazards.

Read more (with map): http://www.3news.co.nz/sport/generosity-keeps-teens-league-dream-alive-2015011319

-- 3 News 2015-01-14

Well, I'm in NZ right now, and I can't see any evidence of "preparing" for global warming, or increased sea level, so ???????????

The probably stuck some extra taxes on, but that would be the extent of it.

If NZ is fortunate in having a small population and a large amount of hydro power generation, that's down to luck, more than planning.

[thaibeachlovers]

No such thing and it's all one big lie. The earth is going through its own cycles. I do believe in living green though. Waste not want not and all that.

....and nearly all the world's largest glaciers are receding in length and bulk is a lie too?

That the glaciers are retreating is a fact, but the REASON for such, man made or natural, is up for debate, and I incline to the latter. If it was really the former, I'd expect politicians to be doing more. After all, they have children too.

[boomerangutang]

No such thing and it's all one big lie. The earth is going through its own cycles. I do believe in living green though. Waste not want not and all that.

....and nearly all the world's largest glaciers are receding in length and bulk is a lie too?

That the glaciers are retreating is a fact, but the REASON for such, man made or natural, is up for debate, and I incline to the latter. If it was really the former, I'd expect politicians to be doing more. After all, they have children too.

It's not 'one or the other' reason. All in this discussion, agree that climate is a complicated issue. I personally believe the people activities are exacerbating warming trend - tho by how much, is debatable. Some people posting herein believe that people activities have no effect on world's climate. to me, that's hare-brained.

Speaking of hares, let's make less babies, and start trying to use less fossil fuels. Happy '15.

[boomerangutang]

From today's National Public Radio (USA)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center crunched the numbers and came to this conclusion:

"The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. 1998 currently ranks as the fourth warmest year on record."
source

added note from Boomerangutang: Those who have been reading this long thread may recall there was a contributor, from last year, who said his region was colder than usual. Well, he was from Minnesota, and looking at the map, he was right. Yet, it showcases the concept: a tightly defined regional colder/hotter spell, is not necessarily going to indicate the temperature story for the whole world. As a comparison, Chiang Rai, where I reside, feels colder than usual for this time of year (that's a non-scientific assessment, similar to the fellow poster from MN), yet I don't presume that temperatures in Chiang Rai will prove to be indicative of global temp averages ww in 2015.

Edited January 17, 2015 by boomerangutang

[boomerangutang]

I looked again at the NOAA map posted above. Some points: Alaska, Europe and eastern Russia had the most warming increases on average. In contrast, mid-North America and Mid-Asia had some cooling increases, compared to the base period. Overall, warming trumped cooling, but note the contrasts in the northern hemisphere, showing as broad longitudinal swaths of warmer/cooler/warmer/cooler/warmer.

[F430murci]

Earth had its warmest year on record in 2014, said NOAA and NASA at a joint press conference today. According to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, global surface temperatures in 2014 were 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average, highest among all years in the 1880-2014 record, easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).

. . .

The new temperature record in 2014 was not a cheap recordit was set without an official El Niño event.

. . .

The fact that separate analyses by three major research groups rated 2014 as the warmest year on record should put to rest the bogus idea often espoused by climate change deniers that "global warming stopped in 1998." Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet to the record levels observed in 2014. Climate change is already causing significant impacts to people and ecosystems, and these impacts will grow much more severe in the coming years.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2896

Edited January 17, 2015 by F430murci

[boomerangutang]

At the beginning of 2014, those hoping GW was bogus were hearing the same stories coming out of Europe and US which we hear every winter: heavy snowfall, icy roads, etc. Yes, Europe and the US are prominent in terms of banking, franchises and news outlets, but they're relatively small regions, when compared to the surface of the Earth in general. So, just because news of winter cold snaps made headlines in many of the world's most influential newspapers, didn't mean the Earth was colder on average. The scientific data coming out now (after 2014 has done its stuff) proved otherwise.

[canuckamuck]

I have not had time to look at the link, but have they included their evidence that this 4 100ths of a degree increase is not part of the natural process?

[chuckd]

More "chicken little" talk from the warmists.

Let's compare this massive increase in the world's temperature, if it actually occurred that is, to how that amount of increase would affect the human body.

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

What is normal body temperature?

Most people think of a "normal" body temperature as an oral temperature of 98.6 °F (37 °C). This is an average of normal body temperatures. Your temperature may actually be 1°F (0.6°C) or more above or below 98.6 °F (37 °C). Also, your normal body temperature changes by as much as 1°F (0.6°C) throughout the day, depending on how active you are and the time of day.

http://www.webmd.com/first-aid/body-temperature

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

Time for everybody to panic.

[RickBradford]

The fact that separate analyses by three major research groups rated 2014 as the warmest year on record should put to rest [1] the bogus idea [2] often espoused by climate change deniers [3] that "global warming stopped in 1998." [4] Based on the evidence, more than 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are primarily responsible for the warming of the planet to the record levels observed in 2014 [5]. Climate change is already causing significant impacts to people and ecosystems [6], and these impacts will grow much more severe in the coming years.[7] (Wunderground)

A textbook case of Green/Left recycling of vague, unsubstantiated, misleading, fact-free, plain wrong and ad hominem rubbish designed to fool their dim-bulb supporters into thinking that we are in some sort of a crisis.

[1] Why? Are these the only 3 research groups on the planet we're allowed to listen to? There are numerous other groups which disagree

[2] An idea cannot be bogus. It is just an idea. It can be proved correct, or incorrect, or somewhere in between, that's all.

[3] Deniers, already. OK, everyone knows where you're coming from.

[4] That's not what was said. The skeptic stance is "there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1996" which is very different in content, and intent

[5] The idiotic 97% "consensus" is one of the most widely ridiculed and dismissed conclusions in modern sociology.

[6] Where? How do you know it was 'climate change' and not something else? Because very often it turns out to have been something else entirely (human pressure, pollution, etc etc)

[7] How do you know it will be "much more severe"? Got any science?

Not a bad effort for one paragraph. They forgot to play the racist card, though.

[boomerangutang]

More "chicken little" talk from the warmists.

Let's compare this massive increase in the world's temperature, if it actually occurred that is, to how that amount of increase would affect the human body.

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

What is normal body temperature?

Most people think of a "normal" body temperature as an oral temperature of 98.6 °F (37 °C). This is an average of normal body temperatures. Your temperature may actually be 1°F (0.6°C) or more above or below 98.6 °F (37 °C). Also, your normal body temperature changes by as much as 1°F (0.6°C) throughout the day, depending on how active you are and the time of day.

http://www.webmd.com/first-aid/body-temperature

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

Time for everybody to panic.

That's an odd analogy: people body temps and planet temps. What about reptiles which sit on a rock in the desert morning. Do they figure in your analogy? Maybe you can fit scorpions in there somewhere, as they glow in the night, if illuminated with a black light.

You can toss around the kindergartenish 'chicken little' taunt, ...but who's got the bird brain?

[chuckd]

More "chicken little" talk from the warmists.

Let's compare this massive increase in the world's temperature, if it actually occurred that is, to how that amount of increase would affect the human body.

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

What is normal body temperature?

Most people think of a "normal" body temperature as an oral temperature of 98.6 °F (37 °C). This is an average of normal body temperatures. Your temperature may actually be 1°F (0.6°C) or more above or below 98.6 °F (37 °C). Also, your normal body temperature changes by as much as 1°F (0.6°C) throughout the day, depending on how active you are and the time of day.

http://www.webmd.com/first-aid/body-temperature

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

Time for everybody to panic.

That's an odd analogy: people body temps and planet temps. What about reptiles which sit on a rock in the desert morning. Do they figure in your analogy? Maybe you can fit scorpions in there somewhere, as they glow in the night, if illuminated with a black light.

You can toss around the kindergartenish 'chicken little' taunt, ...but who's got the bird brain?

."...but who's got the bird brain?"

IMHO that honor goes to 97% of the world's climate scientists.

[MiclB]

See what results when too much government money buys too many scientists--------------

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right

Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’

But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error

Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

Published: 00:43 GMT, 18 January 2015 | Updated: 15:12 GMT, 18 January 2015

Data: Gavin Schmidt, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, admits there's a margin of error

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PDRQU7hf

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook