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

[ExpatOilWorker]

Pardon me, for taking the 'monkey' reference and tweaking it a bit:

Various hairless monkeys crank up the coal-fired electricity plants - to quench the wasteful usage of most other hairless monkeys. A listing of the wasteful ways they use electricity could fill a book, small font. Someone needs to throw a monkey wrench in to the spindles. Humans produce over 6 billion metric tons of CO2 annually (source) that's about 1 ton per person, on average. A rich person probably produces closer to 30 tons/year. It's not all (not even most) of worldwide CO2 emitted annually, but it's significant. How much of that is wasteful/unnecessary usage? Your guess is as good as mine. I'd say around 70%.

A personal spin: I just met a young man who is captain of a mid-sized pleasure yacht for hire. He told me how they just did a special 10 day tour around some islands - for a few very rich guests. Guess how much they spent, just on diesel fuel? 32,000 Euros!

Why post a 2002 number for carbon emission?

Total CO2 emission for 2013 is about 36 billion tons.

NOTE: Some just report carbon © emission, while others report CO2 emission.

[Scott]

Troll posts and replies deleted.

[boomerangutang]

Pardon me, for taking the 'monkey' reference and tweaking it a bit:

Various hairless monkeys crank up the coal-fired electricity plants - to quench the wasteful usage of most other hairless monkeys. A listing of the wasteful ways they use electricity could fill a book, small font. Someone needs to throw a monkey wrench in to the spindles. Humans produce over 6 billion metric tons of CO2 annually (source) that's about 1 ton per person, on average. A rich person probably produces closer to 30 tons/year. It's not all (not even most) of worldwide CO2 emitted annually, but it's significant. How much of that is wasteful/unnecessary usage? Your guess is as good as mine. I'd say around 70%.

A personal spin: I just met a young man who is captain of a mid-sized pleasure yacht for hire. He told me how they just did a special 10 day tour around some islands - for a few very rich guests. Guess how much they spent, just on diesel fuel? 32,000 Euros!

I totally agree that things need to change. Where we disagree is on how much these things are related to warming and whether mankind's contribution to environmental CO2 has anything significant to do with it. Or if indeed warming is not actually one good thing, just before we are plunged back into colder averages.

If overall warming is and continues to happen, as I believe it will, then sure, there could be some positives. Growing bananas outdoors in Scotland, or having nude beaches in Finland are a couple that come to mind. I'm already growing cactus in my garden here in northern Thailand. They're doing great, thanks. Hypothetically, in 50 years, there could be a lot less semi-tropical plants here (in places which aren't covered in concrete, as development is rapacious around here) - and offspring from my (and others') cacti and succulents plants could dominate the landscape. One thing that won't change: Thai men will still favor lily white skin over amber-colored for their g.f.'s and wives.

[chuckd]

Here is the latest from the co-founder of Greenpeace.

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

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

8:46 PM 02/25/2014

Michael Bastasch

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-evidence-of-man-made-global-warming/#ixzz2uRhIsdCb

[LomSak27]

Snowpack is a somewhat low this year in the Sierras. Say like a 500 year low, they have been pumping ground water tell it’s a moot point. Central valley is going to take a major hit this year. Then LA and Vegas are going to have to fight it out for what’s left of Lake Mead.

Nope climate change, global warming might not be happening but it really doesn’t matter does it.

It is hitting the fan now.

[canuckamuck]

How did the last 500 year low occur?

[boomerangutang]

The Title and the first sentence of the article about Mr. Moore is not in quotes. In the 3rd paragraph, nearly the same sentence is in quotes, but says something different (it's easy to tweak words in a sentence to change its meaning). It's an sneaky method of reporting which slants the article toward a message - which differs from what the subject actually said. Mr. Moore was indeed a co-founder of Greenpeace, but he left over 40 years ago and his political leanings have been shifting to the right ever since.

The Daily Caller is a far-right internet news service, run by Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney. Cheney, in case you forgot, is the guy who brought the US in to the 2nd Iraq war, and also is on the board of several corporations which supply multi-million dollar contracts to the US military there. Cheney also went on a witch hunt against a CIA agent (revealed her ID to the public) because the agent was finding info that contradicted Cheney's assertions on why the US got in that, and other wars. If Patel 'advised' Cheney on those decisions, you have to question his wisdom quotient.

[RickBradford]

Mr. Moore was indeed a co-founder of Greenpeace

Not any longer, according to Greenpeace itself, which has disappeared him as an unperson, like Nikolai Yeshov. His only acknowledged contribution is being "on board" the boat for Greenpeace's first mission.

... but he left over 40 years ago and his political leanings have been shifting to the right ever since.

Wrong. Moore left Greenpeace in 1986.

"I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. I had no idea that after I left in 1986 they would evolve into a band of scientific illiterates who use Gestapo tactics to silence people."

His Senate testimony is sensible but unremarkable -- he notes that we are not yet capable of predicting whether temperatures will rise or fall in future, that we should make provision for both cases, and that warm has always proved more beneficial to most species than cold.

He certainly sees no reason to dismantle Western industrial society on the basis of some academics' computer programs which have failed spectacularly to predict current temperature trends.

[boomerangutang]

People switch affiliations willy nilly. The first time I registered to vote, in the US, 1969, it was as a Republican. Soon after, I disabused myself from that diversion. What are Mr. Moore's credentials as a scientist, let alone a climate scientist?

A quote from Moore: "...there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans..."

Tell that to the hundred million or so city-dwellers whose cities get swamped.

[canuckamuck]

People switch affiliations willy nilly. The first time I registered to vote, in the US, 1969, it was as a Republican. Soon after, I disabused myself from that diversion. What are Mr. Moore's credentials as a scientist, let alone a climate scientist?

A quote from Moore: "...there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans..."

Tell that to the hundred million or so city-dwellers whose cities get swamped.

Sir Patrick Moore joined the British Astronomical society at age eleven and eventually became the president.

He was a prominent writer with over 70 books on astronomy, as well as being A well known TV and Radio Host. He has the distinction of being the host of the world's longest running TV series having the same original presenter.

In addition to his many scientific books he also wrote fiction.

Among his numerous awards and appointments he has an honorary doctorate of science from the university of Leicester.

So he wasn't a climate scientist, he was involved with actual science.

BTW he was a critic of the war in Iraq.

[canuckamuck]

Whoops, I guess they meant a different Patrick Moore. The one from the posted article has a PH.D in Ecology.

So still a Science guy, perhaps better qualified.

[FiftyTwo]

People switch affiliations willy nilly. The first time I registered to vote, in the US, 1969, it was as a Republican. Soon after, I disabused myself from that diversion. What are Mr. Moore's credentials as a scientist, let alone a climate scientist?

A quote from Moore: "...there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans..."

Tell that to the hundred million or so city-dwellers whose cities get swamped.

Buying a home on low lying ground has been risky throughout history.

For example

House on a beach, nice for views and romance, bad for tidal waves and storms.

Building a house in a swamp, that only recently seemed like a good idea.

But New Orleans and Bangkok have already found it really wasn't.

Edited February 27, 2014 by FiftyTwo

[chuckd]

The Title and the first sentence of the article about Mr. Moore is not in quotes. In the 3rd paragraph, nearly the same sentence is in quotes, but says something different (it's easy to tweak words in a sentence to change its meaning). It's an sneaky method of reporting which slants the article toward a message - which differs from what the subject actually said. Mr. Moore was indeed a co-founder of Greenpeace, but he left over 40 years ago and his political leanings have been shifting to the right ever since.

The Daily Caller is a far-right internet news service, run by Neil Patel, former chief policy adviser to Vice President Cheney. Cheney, in case you forgot, is the guy who brought the US in to the 2nd Iraq war, and also is on the board of several corporations which supply multi-million dollar contracts to the US military there. Cheney also went on a witch hunt against a CIA agent (revealed her ID to the public) because the agent was finding info that contradicted Cheney's assertions on why the US got in that, and other wars. If Patel 'advised' Cheney on those decisions, you have to question his wisdom quotient.

Titles are never put in quotes when they are copied from a web site, The first sentence of the article which is similar to the 3rd paragraph is a sub-title and no quote marks are required. You may consider it "sneaky" but it is done by nearly every journalist.

You might consider attacking the content of the article rather than the publication source. Did The Daily Caller misquote some of Mr. Moore's testimony in some way?

You attack on Cheney is without basis in fact. Cheney did not reveal the identity of CIA Analyst Valerie Plame to journalist Robert Novak. It was Richard Armitage, a US State Department employee.

To set the record straight:

On July 14, 2003, Washington Post journalist Robert Novak, using information obtained from Richard Armitage at the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.[34][35] Legal documents published in the course of the CIA leak grand jury investigation, United States v. Libby, and Congressional investigations, establish her classified employment as a covert officer for the CIA at the time when Novak's column was published in July 2003.[35][36][37]

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

the Daily Cller

[attrayant]

A slightly different take on Patrick Moore:

[Moore] campaigned against nuclear testing, whaling, seal hunting, pesticides, supertankers, uranium mining, and toxic waste dumping. As the nonprofit's scientific spokesperson, he was widely quoted and frequently photographed, often while being taken into custody.

Then, in 1986, the PhD ecologist abruptly turned his back on the environmental movement. He didn't just retire; he joined the other side. Today, he's a mouthpiece for some of the very interests Greenpeace was founded to counter, notably the timber and plastics industries. He argues that the Amazon rain forest is doing fine, that the Three Gorges Dam is the smartest thing China could do for its energy supply, and that opposition to genetically modified foods is tantamount to mass murder.

Isn't that odd - the moment he started getting paid by fossil fuel byproduct industries and slash & burn agriculture firms, his views on climate change... um, changed. What are the odds of that?

Consider the public hearing held at Boston City Hall on October 23 last year. The matter at hand was a proposal to ban the purchase of polyvinyl chloride products using city funds. An impressive array of expert witnesses testified in favor of the resolution - an Environmental Protection Agency toxicologist, a Tufts University economist, a Boston Public Health Commission official, the head of purchasing for a cancer research center. The production and incineration of PVC products, they argued, releases chemicals known as dioxins, exposure to which can lead to endocrine disorders, cancer, diabetes, infant mortality, and cognitive and developmental problems in children.

Then Patrick Moore took the floor. "It's a good thing most of the people who got up here before me weren't under oath," he began. "There is not a public benefit to be derived from a ban on PVC." The whole issue is "based on bad science and misinformation." First of all, Moore argued, total dioxin emissions have dropped 90 percent since 1970, to levels safely below those that cause health problems.

[snip]

It was a bravura performance. When Moore returned to his seat, he was greeted with handshakes and backslaps from the folks who had paid his way: the Vinyl Institute.

I think that's the dictionary definition of 'paid shill'.

[boomerangutang]

I've known people who get a kick out of ruffling liberals' feathers. I had a side job for awhile, writing a monthly newspaper column in California. I and the other 7 columnists were coupled up with those who had opposing views. each month, me and my associate would pick a topic, and take opposing views. His column would routinely rail against environmentalists and their causes, and mine would take the environmentalist slant. I've known others, along the way, who were stalwart in their resistance to environmentalist proposals, even to the extent of purposefully seeking arguments. In other words, they would make concerted efforts to tick people off - and seemed to get joy from doing so. It's akin to the bad boy of the family, who knowingly does naughty or wrong things, in order to get a strong response (or attention) from others. Moore sounds like that ilk.

[RickBradford]

Recently, the climate 'consensus' science community has been forced to admit, kicking and screaming, that global temperatures have not risen in over 15 years -- they call it a 'pause' to try and persuade people they know that temperatures will start rising again soon.

So, they have had to cast around for excuses. So far, they have tried:

1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific Trade Winds

Now they're trying a new excuse for being wrong -- it was just terrible, awful, bad luck!

Here we argue that a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends in the real world after about 1992 [that's 22 years they've been wrong for, then - RB]. Specifically, the influence of volcanic eruptions, aerosols in the atmosphere and solar activity all took unexpected turns over the 2000s. The climate model simulations, effectively, were run with the assumption that conditions were broadly going to continue along established trajectories.

Gosh, those darned coincidences throwing all the sophisticated models out!

As it turns out, the author of this new paper advising us not to trust the old climate models is one Gavin Schmidt, who in 2010 said that only "nutters" didn't trust the old climate models.

"You can say, 'You know what, I don't trust the climate models, so I'm going to walk into the middle of the road with a blindfold on,' " Schmidt said. "But you know what, that's not smart."

And then they wonder why only a handful of halfwits believe their doom-laden message any more.

Edited February 28, 2014 by RickBradford

[attrayant]

Recently, the climate 'consensus' science community has been forced to admit, kicking and screaming, that global temperatures have not risen in over 15 years -- they call it a 'pause' to try and persuade people they know that temperatures will start rising again soon.

Any particular reason you picked the last 15 years to comment about? It certainly is the tastiest cherry on the tree. But wait, there's even better news for you: the average global temps have stalled or even decreased FIVE times over the last forty years. So why then, has the mean value risen steadily over the same period?

If looking at those five individual periods of "cooling" makes you feel better, then good for you. But if the overall trend continues, that is a security blanket you won't need in a few dozen more years.

[RickBradford]

Any particular reason you picked the last 15 years to comment about?

Not really. Most of the datasets show 17.5 years already, but some extremists can't bring themselves to accept that yet. So I thought I'd go with 15, which even the most extreme alarmists concede

So why then, has the mean value risen steadily over the same period?

Because the earth is rebounding from the Little Ice Age and has been since about 1850. Even Greenpeace understands that.

If Mother Nature had a Twitter account, she would probably address the alarmist climate scientists with "We apologise for any inconvenience the flat temperatures are causing to your reputation and grant funding."

[boomerangutang]

There were numerous record high temps - in many places in the world, during the 2000's. I had posted a color coded map showing that graphically, but can't find it right this moment. I posted in in earlier climate debate thread. It gets tiring to have to dig around and repeatedly show hard data which support a warming trend for recent times. Deniers aren't going to change their fixations, regardless of what data comes forth. Even when the NW passage becomes virtually ice-free, the deniers will find ways to insist that indicates nothing.

On occasion, even some deniers admit there's a warming trend - but then they quickly dismiss or obfuscate it in one way or another.

[RickBradford]

The desperate climate bingo from the alarmists gets more absurd day by day.

Having tried:

1. There is no pause.

2. There is a pause and we can explain it

3. There is a pause which we couldn't explain but it was just bad luck

... the latest is

4. There is a pause, we can't explain it, but it doesn't matter!

After decades of telling us that the rise in global mean temperatures will devastate the planet, the alarmists have now decided that the rise in global mean temperatures is ... irrelevant!

... it would be erroneous to interpret the recent slowdown of the global annual mean temperature increase as a general slowdown of climate change.

This is climate 'science' in action -- as soon as the entire theory collapses, pretend that's not what you meant anyway.

No wonder the alarmists are so keen to shut the debate down.

EDIT: The new paper which makes this claim comes from the UNSW's ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science

Edited March 1, 2014 by RickBradford

[shirtless]

If they are really that concerned , why dont they fix Fukushima this is a real issue and no governments or world bodies are doing anything, climate change equates to give us money, money has never fixed pollution as far as i know, Carbon tax anyone.

[boomerangutang]

With something as complicated as climate, there are few black & white scenarios. Example: When there's a declaration of a drought in a particular region, let's say Somalia or California, then along comes some rain. That bit of rain doesn't cancel the fact that there's a drought.

Similarly, the unseasonably cold weather this winter, in parts of the US does not, in itself, deflate the notion of a global warming trend. Similarly and concurrently, record high temps in Australia do not in themselves, define the global warming trend. Southeastern US and Southeastern Australia happen to be two regions where there are a lot of people and high value infrastructure. Partly for those reasons, temperature swings become headline news. But terrestrial areas like that are a relatively small portion of the Earth's surface. When studying Earth's climate, the vast majority of regions studied are devoid of people and buildings, so they're not as big a deal as, for example, 9 inches of snow in Washington D.C. - such snow compels conservative senators (many of whom are invested in Big Oil) to run out in their front yards and proclaim,

"You see - global warming is a liberal plot to garner more grant money for incompetent pseudo scientists. You see all this snow on the ground? That's proof that global warming is a ruse foisted on taxpayers - to pay for chimney scrubbers for coal-fired power plants. It's a plot to take your car away."

[RickBradford]

Similarly, the unseasonably cold weather this winter, in parts of the US does not, in itself, deflate the notion of a global warming trend. Similarly and concurrently, record high temps in Australia do not in themselves, define the global warming trend.

Half right. Extreme cold is of course just weather, while extreme heat, say the alarmists with tiresome regularity, must be climate change:

Researcher Sophie Lewis told the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society conference about her hunt for reasons behind the extreme sum­mer.

"It is nearly impossible to explain it from natural climate variation. Greenhouse gases are needed to explain this," the University of Melbourne researcher said.

This is the fundamental logical fallacy known as the 'argument from ignorance' or the 'appeal to ignorance'.

It is not science; it is activism.

[Scott]

I am getting rather sick of the endless sniping at each other's opinions. Did you have something to say about the subject, or did you wish to just ridicule the other side? If you wish to just ridicule the other side then you can expect a sudden shift in the climate here and a little bit of time to cool down.

[RickBradford]

Very well. The point I am making, without intending to ridicule the opinions of others in any way, is:

Climate 'science', especially as it appears in the media, and even more so regarding the 15 or 17 years of flat global temperatures, is little more than a stew of logical fallacies, including:

* the argument from ignorance ("we can't explain it, so it must be CO2"),

* the appeal to authority ("97% of climate scientists prefer CO2 as their climate demon!"),

* the fallacy of the single cause("to keep global temperature rises below 2C, we must cut CO2 to less than 350ppm")

* the fallacy of false correlation ("CO2 has increased; the planet has warmed; therefore CO2 caused the warming"),

* the appeal to pity ("what about the poor polar bears"),

* the moral high ground fallacy ("we worry about poor people and children, so we must be right") ,

* the fallacy of accident ("we predicted man-made warming; Australia was hot this year, so we were right"),

* the appeal to irrelevance and the false dilemma ("even if global warming isn't man-made, we should do something about CO2 anyway"),

* the fallacy of ad-hominem ("Roy Spencer believes in God, so we can ignore his scientific arguments").

Finally, of course, there is the appeal to force ("skeptics should be banned from the TV, and prosecuted in Nuremberg-style courts"), perhaps the least pleasant of all.

You can add to that Russell's Teapot, an analogy that demonstrates that the burden of proof lies upon the dogmatists making extreme claims, rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, in this case, the climate skeptics.

Despite 20+ years and hundreds of billions of dollars, the alarmists have utterly failed to make their case.

[boomerangutang]

There's a scene in a movie, which takes place in 17th century French court. The king and his retinue are being entertained by the court jester. The jester goes on and on, in flamboyant style, with multiple proofs of the existence of God. The King and court are smiling contentedly, all soaking it in. After the applause dies down, the jester says, "I can also prove that God does not exist." The royal retinue grumbles and looks away.

My point here, is to show that, if a person is determined, he can advocate on one or the other extreme view on any topic (lawyers do it for a living). The proof of that is in this thread. In my posts, I ramble on with proposals (my own, and some quoted from others) which claim a host of things which could be done to improve/clean up things on this one finite planet. However, for those who fixate on being contrary, DON'T APPRECIATE ANY POINT PUT FORTH, but rather dig around (sometimes to ridiculous degrees) to fixate upon things that are contrarian.

The post above attempts to poop on the statement, "even if global warming isn't man-made, we should do something about CO2 anyway"

Yet, to anyone other than someone who is completely fixated on being contrarian, that's a reasonable statement. BTW, when someone says, "...do something about CO2" they're referring, among other things, to lessening emissions from coal plants, fossil fuel burning, and internal combustion motors, plastic factories (among other man-made things). Who's got a problem with that?!? Judging from posts and 'likes' on this thread, many folks don't want any lessening (indeed, perhaps they want increases) of fossil fuel burning worldwide.

[attrayant]

The post above attempts to poop on the statement, "even if global warming isn't man-made, we should do something about CO2 anyway"

[canman]

The post above attempts to poop on the statement, "even if global warming isn't man-made, we should do something about CO2 anyway"

Laudable sentiments but unfortunately that is not the goal of the current CO2 AGW cult. If I thought for a second that the drivers of the current CO2 scare mongerers were those listed I would be onboard in a millisecond.

By the way, have you found any concrete evidence that CO2 is drowning polar bears? Seriously, i would be interested to see the evidence.

[boomerangutang]

CO2 is just part of the equation. The bigger picture is Increased melting of polar ice and shrinking of glaciers. If man-released CO2 is a factor, then let's deal with that. If it's not a factor, then let's go look at other ways to improve things. If a 40-years ago former member of Greenpeace states that severe warming will be good for people worldwide, then he's entitled to his opinion. Fact remains that a warmer planet = rising seas = spreading deserts = less arable land = increasing numbers of desperate people not able to eke out a living..

People are just one species. Yet nearly all discussions on GW and its causes revolve around that one species. Regardless of whether GW is moderate or severe, other species are being eliminated weekly. And guess which species is primarily responsible for the eradication of others, like tigers, bears, and rhinos, and thousands of smaller.

[RickBradford]

Fact remains that a warmer planet = rising seas = spreading deserts = less arable land = increasing numbers of desperate people not able to eke out a living..

That doesn't look much like a fact to me, more like a bizarre chain of assumptions.

For example, can you explain how rising seas contribute to spreading deserts?