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

[boomerangutang]

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?

warmer planet = spreading deserts. It's bizarre if you want it to be.

[RickBradford]

It's not a question of what I want, but one of factual accuracy.

Scientists (on both sides of the debate) have largely agreed that a warmer world is a wetter world, as the scientific journal Nature explains:

"Global warming will increase worldwide precipitation by three times the amount predicted by current climate models, according to a study based on two decades' worth of satellite observations. Models predict that worldwide precipitation — which must match the amount of evaporation — will increase by 1-3% for each degree of future global warming."

Indeed, this is the key reason why figures such as the chief scientist of the UK's Met Office have been blaming the record recent UK rainfall and subsequent floods on global warming.

"All the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change," said Dame Julia Slingo.

The warmer-is-wetter theory is attested to by multiple lines of historical evidence, as well as contemporary phenomena such as the Greening of the Sahara.

"Warmer planet = spreading deserts" is bizarre as well as incorrect.

[Donnie Brasco]

So FACTS as cogent as they may be to bringing Al's motivations into the focus are not admissible to this conversation ?

That's correct. Check the thread topic again: Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

You're suggesting that if somebody gets paid to do a job or perform research, their findings are automatically suspect because they made money doing it. In that case, nobody who gets paid can be trusted. Rethink that and get back to us.

How does CO2 make air dirty? Without CO2 in our air we would lose all the plants. It's needs to be there. You might as well call Oxygen a pollutant too because too much of it can be dangerous.

I'm really getting tired of answering gradeschool science questions. CO2 is a poisonous gas. A little bit is beneficial for plants, but too much can kill you. Do you dispute that?

Gas Chamber:

A gas chamber is an apparatus for killing humans or animals with gas, consisting of a sealed chamber into which a poisonous or asphyxiant gas is introduced. The most commonly used poisonous agent is hydrogen cyanide; carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide have also been used.

In fact it's so effective, it's used in slaughterhouses to kill pigs and chickens. Now can you understand why we don't want too much of it floating around in the air that we breathe?

If you don't understand what 'pollutant' means, then your argument is with the people who write encyclopedias and dictionaries, not with me.

I did not say that, you said that.

Fake syllogisms are silly but they are some how brilliantly suited to the thinking patterns of those who will stand in a blizzard preaching global

warming (sorry) climate change ( sorry) man MADE climate change.

While you're up get me a "Grant's", wouldja ?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Donnie Brasco]

Michael Mann is a junk science fraud.

People get paid to do what you are doing.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Scott]

A post has been deleted. Please address the topic and not other posters.

[boomerangutang]

"Warmer planet = spreading deserts" is bizarre as well as incorrect.

Sit back and watch the graphics. As the years roll by, deserts will increase in size. And yes, rainfall and storm intensities will increase. Sounds contradictory, doesn't it? Yet, it's a big world out there, so there can be droughts in some places, while concurrently, deluges in others. There are other factors for deserts increasing in size: Overgrazing, deforestation, too many people with too few resources. A couple decades ago, there was one small lone tree in a vast desert area in Chad. A car backed in to it and knocked it over. Go figure.

Edited March 3, 2014 by boomerangutang

[chuckd]

"Warmer planet = spreading deserts" is bizarre as well as incorrect.

Sit back and watch the graphics. As the years roll by, deserts will increase in size. And yes, rainfall and storm intensities will increase. Sounds contradictory, doesn't it? Yet, it's a big world out there, so there can be droughts in some places, while concurrently, deluges in others. There are other factors for deserts increasing in size: Overgrazing, deforestation, too many people with too few resources. A couple decades ago, there was one small lone tree in a vast desert area in Chad. A car backed in to it and knocked it over. Go figure.

In other words...sit back and watch the weather change. as it has been doing for the past 15 billion years or so.

Pity that poor tree got taken out by real man-made change.

[attrayant]

Scientists (on both sides of the debate) have largely agreed that a warmer world is a wetter world...

There is a fixed amount of water in the world. How can it become wetter? Did you mean wetter land masses?

...as the scientific journal Nature explains:

"Global warming will increase worldwide precipitation by three times the amount predicted by current climate models, according to a study based on two decades' worth of satellite observations. Models predict that worldwide precipitation which must match the amount of evaporation will increase by 1-3% for each degree of future global warming."

This seems to be a fancy way of saying that the water cycle will accelerate. But for land masses to become wetter, more water has to fall on them than evaporates from them. That's a very difficult projection to make, as your article admits.

It would be nice if you could link to your sources, rather than make us go fishing for them. Here's your article, in case anyone else wants to read it. It seems to raise more questions than it answers. The overall tone of the article is 'We're not sure, but here's how it might work'.

'Warmer planet = spreading deserts' is bizarre as well as incorrect.

There is a fairly well-understood ecological process called desertification. While it's true that warm air can hold more water vapor than cooler air, the problem with very warm land is that the water vapor can no longer condense and fall back to the ground as rain. The air temperature must be below the dew point for water to condense back into liquid. This becomes less of an occurrence as the air temperature increases, we therefore see less rainfall over land and, to make matters worse, a greater rate of evaporation of water from the soil. Where will the rain be coming back down? Where the air temperatures are low enough to permit condensation: over the oceans.

Even if some water does fall on presently arid regions, it will be quite some time before they can be naturally fertilized and manually tilled into arable farmland. By the time all that happens (if it ever does), existing farmlands will have been barren for many years.

Edited March 3, 2014 by attrayant

[attrayant]

Finally, NOAA disagrees with you too:

Irreversible Climate Change: Precipitation Changes. Warming is expected to be linked to changes in rainfall, which can adversely affect the supply of water for humans, agriculture, and ecosystems. Precipitation is highly variable but long-term rainfall decreases have been observed in some large regions including, e.g., the Mediterranean, southern Africa, and parts of southwestern North America.

[snip]

However, well-known physics (the ClausiusClapeyron law) implies that increased temperature causes increased atmospheric water vapor concentrations, and changes in water vapor transport and the hydrologic cycle can hence be expected.

In other words, more water will be held captive in the air, and less will be falling on the Earth.

While some areas in higher latitudes might see some increased wetness, these areas typically have poor soil conditions and, since they are in the higher latitudes, suffer from a seasonal sunlight deficit making farming a challenge.

[boomerangutang]

In other words...sit back and watch the weather change. as it has been doing for the past 15 billion years or so.

The Earth and its weather has been going on for about a third of that time. Scientists estimate the Universe has been going on for 13.4 billion years.

More up-to-date: when deniers state things like, 'weather has been changing for a very long time' it's like looking at some girls killed in a road accident and saying 'people have been dying for a long time. Everyone is going do die eventually, so what's the big deal?'

I had friends in California who, when something extraordinary happened, would say things like; "Wow, karma, man." or "what's meant to happen, will happen." Thais are similar, in their quickness to resolve to 'karma' to wistfully explain anything away.

In the climate debate, saying things like "Dude, weather has been changing for a long time! What's the big deal?" ....lowers the level of the discussion.

[chuckd]

In other words...sit back and watch the weather change. as it has been doing for the past 15 billion years or so.

The Earth and its weather has been going on for about a third of that time. Scientists estimate the Universe has been going on for 13.4 billion years.

More up-to-date: when deniers state things like, 'weather has been changing for a very long time' it's like looking at some girls killed in a road accident and saying 'people have been dying for a long time. Everyone is going do die eventually, so what's the big deal?'

I had friends in California who, when something extraordinary happened, would say things like; "Wow, karma, man." or "what's meant to happen, will happen." Thais are similar, in their quickness to resolve to 'karma' to wistfully explain anything away.

In the climate debate, saying things like "Dude, weather has been changing for a long time! What's the big deal?" ....lowers the level of the discussion.

If you feel my occasional posts on this thread are beneath you, simply stop responding to them. Cheers.

[RickBradford]

We see more of this self-serving "Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" climate rhetoric every day.

President Obama links the California drought to climate change and Prime Minister Cameron links the UK floods to climate change, all based on the very politically convenient (but scientifically unsupported) notion that mild warming causes the climate to go haywire.

Even that bastion of liberal-guilt whingeing, the New York Times, couldn't bring itself to buy Obama's silly claims.

[The president is] pushing the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change … there is no scientific consensus that [drought] is a worldwide phenomenon. Nor is there definitive evidence that it is causing California’s problems.

The NYT then noted that various computer projections predicted that California ought to be getting wetter as the climate gets warmer, not drier.

Of course, idiocy on this scale won't deter the True Believers. But it does cause defections among the Mindless Foot Soldiers who follow them around.

Edited March 4, 2014 by RickBradford

[Donnie Brasco]

Warmists roll their eyes and pronounce that WEATHER is not enough of a long-term concept to be accepted into the definition of CLIMATE ?

For some reason, their constant tsunami of junk science, logical fallacy and political cant is overlooked by the devout.

Evidence contradictory to the articles of Warmist faith is obfuscated.

Current conditions must be ignored in favour of cowering in fear of the future events they've predicted they say.

This sounds a LOT like religion.

Warmists? the World's weather has been stable for nearly twenty years. You have already backed off the WARMING thingie. Can we just agree that while the climate does indeed change, it is a dynamic system and always changes and that these changes will unfold because of geophysical factors.

With the real and present and notable exception of nuclear destruction , human activity has NOTHING to do with this change.

It IS odd that many Warmists and AGW grant recipients happen to side with the nuclear lobby as the only alternative to fossil fuel use. And of course they continue to harp on percentage increases in CO2 while the actual CO2 component of our atmosphere remains around .0397%.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/chill-new-orleans-endures-one-of-coldest-mardi-gras-ever-dc-set-141-year-record-low-lake-michigan-90-covered-in-ice-highest-ever-recorded/

Peril from Fukishima nuclear event and the likelihood of similar events in the near future far exceeds anything warmists can dream up for us regarding the man-made aspect of geophysical climate change.

Fear and junk science (Lamarkism) rather than reason and sound scientific methodology are fully in play in the fields of these grant-hunting "climatists"

If I've mentioned before that I had Warmist stooge Georges Monbiot actually frothing at the corners of his mouth at one of his book-signing fiesta/seminar thingies please excuse the repetition.

George, Al, David are NOT geophysicists. Neither is Chomsky for that matter.

Nor am I.

But when asked, yea, I AM ORDERED to fear unproven bogeymen, my skepticism increases.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[boomerangutang]

With the real and present and notable exception of nuclear destruction , human activity has NOTHING to do with this change.

You don't have to concur, but human activity, particularly in terms of fossil fuel burning, has a noticeable affect on weather. Interesting that you play the nuclear card. Good point about nukes as bombs.

It IS odd that many Warmists and AGW grant recipients happen to side with the nuclear lobby as the only alternative to fossil fuel use.

Sorry Charlie, that's just flat-out wrong. Perhaps some liberals are in favor of nuclear power plants, but the vast majority are against nuclear in any form. The use of the word 'only' preceding '....alternative to fossil fuel' isn't even in the ball park. Liberals and Conservatives alike are in favor of clean low-cost alternative power production methods - compared to fossil fuels and nuclear.

[boomerangutang]

Projected change in annual mean surface air temperature from the late 20th century to the middle 21st century,
based on SRES (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios).

As for super storms in our future:

The Washington Post reported: "With estimated maximum sustained winds of 195 mph, typhoon Haiyan is thought to be the strongest storm to ever make landfall anywhere in the world in modern records." Those winds speeds would be 5 mph higher than the recorded maximum sustained winds of Hurricane Camille in 1969, Super Typhoon Tip in 1979 and Hurricane Allen in 1980. Sustained winds were measured at more than 195 miles per hour before landfall. The measurement reflects the winds sustained by the storm for one minute; the storm was also producing gusts of 230 mph.

Denialists can deny all the above, no problemo.

[RickBradford]

While politicians East and West blame global warming for both extremely wet and extremely dry conditions, those in the North and South blame both hot and cold conditions on global warming.

The Australian Green Party immediately declared the extreme heat of Australia's 2013 summer to be further proof of global warming, while US bureaucrats babble about the "polar vortex" in an attempt to attribute the very cold US winter to global warming.

If only they'd listen to the scientists:

Like many of my colleagues in the climate dynamics community, I [John Wallace, a climatologist at the University of Washington] am not convinced that this winter’s extreme cold lies outside the range of internally generated variability of the climate system or that it was exacerbated by the recent reduction of summer Arctic sea ice coverage. The evidence linking Arctic amplification to the behavior of the wintertime polar vortex is not strong and it is not well supported by independent, peer-reviewed studies.

Come rain, come shine, it's man-made global warming. Not.

[boomerangutang]

n earlier posts by deniers, I got the impression that 'climatologist' was some sort of bogus science pseudo-discipline only applied to wimps grabbing for grants. Now it seems deniers have found a climatologist who is apparently deemed to have veracity and be reputable.

Yet, even the climatologist who is cool with deniers, admits there is reduction of Arctic sea ice:

"....or that it was exacerbated by the recent reduction of summer Arctic sea ice coverage."

In a similar vein, here's an article, albeit from 2007, which claims the NW passage became ice free for the first time in 29 years of satellite records. Most likely, it was ice clogged for hundreds, or even thousands of years prior to that. source

[Donnie Brasco]

n earlier posts by deniers, I got the impression that 'climatologist' was some sort of bogus science pseudo-discipline only applied to wimps grabbing for grants. Now it seems deniers have found a climatologist who is apparently deemed to have veracity and be reputable.

Yet, even the climatologist who is cool with deniers, admits there is reduction of Arctic sea ice:

"....or that it was exacerbated by the recent reduction of summer Arctic sea ice coverage."

In a similar vein, here's an article, albeit from 2007, which claims the NW passage became ice free for the first time in 29 years of satellite records. Most likely, it was ice clogged for hundreds, or even thousands of years prior to that. source quote]

S-s-s-okaaay boomerangutang. Chill.

You are clear on the nuke thing so we're halfway there. (No patronizing intended . . . Just sounds that way, sorry)

Look at Al's fat pamphlet again and tell me it doesn't have the ring of some jive-@$$ presentation to get us all scared shirtless about something these toffee-nosed white shoe peckerwoods can tax us on.

Plastic (forking) bags for chrissakes, fossil fuels (fossil? really? Google the geology on THAT one) coal fired plants ?

They're all gonna be replaced by "safe, clean, emission-free" nuclear powered installations. Mmmmmyepperrr

Al Gore has always been a disappointment to EVERYONE. Hell, the way he had his New York Sullivan & Cromwell stooge back away from James (Baker/Botts) Baker had most of Amerika puking their guts into their Doritos.

The guy is a super-stooge.

"Man-made Global warming" is a fraud.

"Man-made Climate change" is the same fraud but "on the backfoot" after the East Anglia emails exposed shameless dry-labbing by the "climatologists" and Michael Mann's statistically perverted hockey-stick graph was exposed as a fraud.

"Non-man-made climate change" is a geophysical reality

Yep, NON anthropogenic global warming is measurable in some places at some times because no geophysical phenomenon exists independent of others.

This does NOT establish causality.

"Sometimes, 'fuggedabowdit' just means fuggedabowdit."

[snarky66]

So Google is all about exaggerating the GW hoax. I knew I didn't like them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[3NUMBAS]

http://www.todayonline.com/daily-focus/sydney-opera-house-statue-liberty-could-be-lost-rising-seas

quote>

Published: March 5, 7:42 PM

LONDON — Famous global landmarks including the Statue of Liberty, Tower of London and Sydney Opera House will be lost to rising seas caused by climate change, scientists have warned.

Even with just a further 3°C of warming – well within the range to which the UN climate science panel expects temperatures to rise by the end of the century – nearly one-fifth of the planet’s 720 world heritage sites will affected as ice sheets melt and warming oceans expand.

unquote

[RickBradford]

^^^

You might want to read the actual paper, rather than the dog's breakfast that innumerate Guardian reporters inevitably make of it.

Using spatially explicit sea-level estimates for the next 2000 years and high-resolution topography data, we compute which current cultural heritage sites will be affected by sea-level rise ... If the current global mean temperature was sustained for the next two millennia, about 6% (40 sites) of the UNESCO sites will be affected, ....

So, that's the year 4000 that we're all supposed to get in a big panic about today..... how much more desperate can the alarmists get?

Your tax dollars at work.

[boomerangutang]

Future projections of temp rise / glacial ice loss and sea level rises (by climate scientists) have generally been under the mark rather than over. There is no consensus, and there can't be, on what will happen in 20 or 100 or 4,000 years from now. Estimated projections vary, and so they should. However, there's general agreement that cities like Dakha, Bangkok, New Orleans, Shanghai, Miami (and scores more) will be at least partially submerged within 25 years. Bangkok can build 1,000 miles of large ditches and berms, and continue to wall in the Chao Praya river, but it won't stop sea water from finding its level.

[canuckamuck]

What's a general agreement? What's partially submerged?

[boomerangutang]

What's a general agreement? What's partially submerged?

Are you a native English speaker?

general agreement = a group of people, where there's a majority who agree on something.

partially submerged = partly flooded

[RickBradford]

What's a general agreement? What's partially submerged?

Are you a native English speaker?

general agreement = a group of people, where there's a majority who agree on something.

partially submerged = partly flooded

I think he's referring to groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth -- they agree on everything.

Edited March 6, 2014 by RickBradford

[FiftyTwo]

Future projections of temp rise / glacial ice loss and sea level rises (by climate scientists) have generally been under the mark rather than over. There is no consensus, and there can't be, on what will happen in 20 or 100 or 4,000 years from now. Estimated projections vary, and so they should. However, there's general agreement that cities like Dakha, Bangkok, New Orleans, Shanghai, Miami (and scores more) will be at least partially submerged within 25 years. Bangkok can build 1,000 miles of large ditches and berms, and continue to wall in the Chao Praya river, but it won't stop sea water from finding its level.

Cities built on swamps will sink and flood.

Cities built on rocks won't.

Not sure that either is dependent on CO2 in the atmosphere ..... Man-made or natural.

Also not convinced that sea levels will change drastically, world-wide, in the foreseeable future.

Not much changed in the last 1000 years, don't think much will change in the next 1000.

Edited March 6, 2014 by FiftyTwo

[boomerangutang]

Future projections of temp rise / glacial ice loss and sea level rises (by climate scientists) have generally been under the mark rather than over. There is no consensus, and there can't be, on what will happen in 20 or 100 or 4,000 years from now. Estimated projections vary, and so they should. However, there's general agreement that cities like Dakha, Bangkok, New Orleans, Shanghai, Miami (and scores more) will be at least partially submerged within 25 years. Bangkok can build 1,000 miles of large ditches and berms, and continue to wall in the Chao Praya river, but it won't stop sea water from finding its level.

Cities built on swamps will sink and flood.

Cities built on rocks won't.

Not sure that either is dependent on CO2 in the atmosphere ..... Man-made or natural.

Also not convinced that sea levels will change drastically, world-wide, in the foreseeable future.

Not much changed in the last 1000 years, don't think much will change in the next 1000.

The glass is half empty or half full. I think much has changed in the last 1,000 years. Human population has gone from a few million to over 7 billion. Most large beasts are extinct in the wild. It's rare to find a river or lake which a person can drink from. There's a pool of plastic garbage goo bigger than Texas floating in the north Pacific. In many places, skies that used to be blue are gray or yellow. A river in Detroit (or was it Chicago?) caught fire. The Middle East is essentially one big desert, Shall I go on?

I think he's referring to groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth -- they agree on everything.

....like trying to find clean solutions for a planet in peril?

[chuckd]

The Middle East was one big desert when I first went there in 1975.

That was 39 years ago...before Al Gore ever came up with his money making idea.

[RickBradford]

^^^

If I thought for a second that the planet was "in peril", or that Greenpeace could give a fig whether it was or not, I would be the first to support them. I don't.

The latest satellite data shows that global temperatures have not risen in 17 and a half years, meaning that the climate crisis on which Greenpeace bases its climate activism has evaporated, giving Greenpeace ample leeway to do something vaguely green or peaceful. It doesn't.

Instead, it restricts itself to two core businesses.

First, lobbying Governments for more money for its activities (i.e even more lobbying. The EU gives Greenpeace money, which Greenpeace uses to lobby the EU for even more money, which it uses etc etc).

Second, vilifying anyone opposed to its money-making plans, usually by calling them "deniers', with the deliberate Holocaust allusion.

The planet is fine, as the raw data continually demonstrates; it is Greenpeace, as a multi-million dollar organisation which makes nothing that anyone wants to buy, which is in peril.

As for Friends of the Earth, well, with Friends like that, who needs Enemies?

[FiftyTwo]

Future projections of temp rise / glacial ice loss and sea level rises (by climate scientists) have generally been under the mark rather than over. There is no consensus, and there can't be, on what will happen in 20 or 100 or 4,000 years from now. Estimated projections vary, and so they should. However, there's general agreement that cities like Dakha, Bangkok, New Orleans, Shanghai, Miami (and scores more) will be at least partially submerged within 25 years. Bangkok can build 1,000 miles of large ditches and berms, and continue to wall in the Chao Praya river, but it won't stop sea water from finding its level.

Cities built on swamps will sink and flood.

Cities built on rocks won't.

Not sure that either is dependent on CO2 in the atmosphere ..... Man-made or natural.

Also not convinced that sea levels will change drastically, world-wide, in the foreseeable future.

Not much changed in the last 1000 years, don't think much will change in the next 1000.

The glass is half empty or half full. I think much has changed in the last 1,000 years. Human population has gone from a few million to over 7 billion. Most large beasts are extinct in the wild. It's rare to find a river or lake which a person can drink from. There's a pool of plastic garbage goo bigger than Texas floating in the north Pacific. In many places, skies that used to be blue are gray or yellow. A river in Detroit (or was it Chicago?) caught fire. The Middle East is essentially one big desert, Shall I go on?

I think he's referring to groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth -- they agree on everything.

....like trying to find clean solutions for a planet in peril?

This thread is about global warming, not pollution.

Global warming was invented to take the focus of the world off pollution.

Plastic bags in the sea I care about, CO2 in the atmosphere, I don't give a dam_n.

PS

Never been a good idea to drink from lakes and rivers, many parasites/diseases you don't want to ingest in the purest of water.

One could argue, the purer the lake, the more likely it is to have parasites/diseases living in it.

Naegleria fowleri aka PAM

Bilharzia

Leptospirosis aka Vials

Edited March 7, 2014 by FiftyTwo