UN-Google Earth map climate change

[stefan]

UN-Google Earth map climate change

NAIROBI, Kenya (Reuters) -- After letting computer users soar over Mount Kilimanjaro's melting snows and peer down on illegal logging in Asia, the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) is exploring how the latest technology can help it reach more people, an official said on Wednesday.

It hopes to copy the success of a venture with Google Inc. that made an atlas of before-and-after satellite images of environmental change available to more than 100 million viewers through the interactive mapping program Google Earth.

Now UNEP is seeking similar partnerships with firms including Microsoft, Oracle Corp., Cisco Systems and ESRI, a California-based computer mapping company, UNEP program officer Michael Wilson told Reuters.

"A lot of effort is going into developing these sorts of partnerships and finding alignment of interests," he said on the sidelines of a U.N. environment conference in Kenya.

UNEP's "Atlas of Our Changing World" was first published in hardback in June 2005 and features high-resolution images of changes ranging from dramatic deforestation in South America to retreating glaciers in the North Pole, oil exploration in Canada and the huge growth of greenhouses in southern Spain.

In environmental terms, the book became something of a bestseller, moving more than 10,000 copies at $150 each.

"For an organization like UNEP, that was an unprecedented success," Wilson said. "So we all started looking at ways we could make this information available to more and more people."

Late last year, U.N. officials finished uploading the atlas to Google Earth, which covers a third of the world's population in images detailed enough to show cars.

As a result, users can now zoom in and fly over virtual environmental "hotspots" like the explosion of shrimp farms on Thailand's west coast, China's massive Three Gorges Dam or the vanishing snows of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania.

"Google clearly feels it improves their product," Wilson said. "The animations we can use to show the changes taking place are a very effective vehicle for communication."

Copyright 2007 Reuters

[stefan]

link to unep google maps (which can link to google earth)

http://na.unep.net/digital_atlas2/google.php



example, hubbard glacier alaska

http://na.unep.net/digital_atlas2/webatlas.php?id=95

[moabfool]

Um, the bit on Hubbard Glacier says a large chunk of ice is expanding. When the stuff in my fridge gets ice on it that means it's too cold. I thought you were trying to prove (the theory of) global warming?

[stefan]

hmm ... not sure why you got the notion that it was to provide evidence of global warming and receding glaciers

just pretty cool stuff. what can i say ... i like glaciers (see below)

but of course, global warming doesn't state that ALL glaciers are receding either so assumptions shouldn't be made. and glaciers advancing has a lot to do with how much snow is deposited (which can be a local), versus how much is melted, not just how cold it is. a for example, some of utah's warmest winters of the past couple of decades are el nino years which tend to be some of the snowiest, at least in the mountains ... so generalizations are tricky of course. but it's good you're heading up to glacier again soon, cause those glaciers are disappearing rapidly.


here're some alaskan glaciers i've enjoyed. first one is in

wrangell mountains, wrangell st. elias nat'l park, AK



college fjord, prince william sound, AK

[moabfool]

I believe in God, you believe in (the theory of) global warming (human caused). It would take some powerful, incontrovertible evidence to convince either of the other's belief. Neither of us posess such evidence.

[DiscGo]

Here we go again with global warming . I was just going to tell you guys that I have spent several years in Alaska as a tour guide. The most visited glacier in Alaska is called the Mendenhall glacier. It has receded over 600 feet in the last 7 years. This causes a lot of people to blame global warming, but what most visitors do not know is that 20 miles away (and part of the same ice field) is the Taku Glacier that has grown more than 800 feet in the last 5 years.

Most of the world's glaciers are receding but there are still many that are advancing. The Mendenhall Glacier visitor center has two different predicted futures for the next 200 years. One future predicts the glacier continuing to recede and the other predicts the glacier receding off of the lake on which is rests currently and then over a period of time slowly beginning to advance forward again.

[stefan]

but mike, i am not trying to convince you of anything

my point was simply that, how could you assume that something i posted might pose for global warming evidence if (1) it showed the opposite stereotypical trend and if (2) such a trend doesn't necessarily contradict the theory? and then to bring religion into this?

they are trying to map changes on our planet, both by non-human and human causes. i think using satellite data will be a very useful tool to monitor and chart our impact on the planet (logging and defragmentation of forests, large scale mining and drilling, city expansion, etc). but it's also useful to monitor dynamic processes like volcanos, glacier/ice sheet/ice shelf movement, forest health and the movement of its boundaries, extent and progress of forest fires, destruction by storms/tsunamis/earthquakes etc.

i just thought it was interesting, and one day to have access to a database of past GIS data streamed straight to your computer at home ... well i thought that'd be pretty damn cool

i am interested in changes ... and it'd be cool (and at times aweful) to be able to compare the before and after

[asdf]

[moabfool]

but mike, i am not trying to convince you of anything

my point was simply that, how could you assume that something i posted might pose for global warming evidence if (1) it showed the opposite stereotypical trend and if (2) such a trend doesn't necessarily contradict the theory? and then to bring religion into this?

they are trying to map changes on our planet, both by non-human and human causes. i think using satellite data will be a very useful tool to monitor and chart our impact on the planet (logging and defragmentation of forests, large scale mining and drilling, city expansion, etc). but it's also useful to monitor dynamic processes like volcanos, glacier/ice sheet/ice shelf movement, forest health and the movement of its boundaries, extent and progress of forest fires, destruction by storms/tsunamis/earthquakes etc.

i just thought it was interesting, and one day to have access to a database of past GIS data streamed straight to your computer at home ... well i thought that'd be pretty damn cool

i am interested in changes ... and it'd be cool (and at times aweful) to be able to compare the before and after

I'm just finding it hard to accept that you post this kind of stuff at face value. The focus of your posts hints at an agenda, ie: look what we awful humans are doing to our planet. I admit, we do alter our environment (and that stretches far beyond an ecological standpoint), but are all the effects harmful (every act of every organism on the planet could be construed as harmful to another on some macrocosmic scale)? I have read your posts/copy-pastes and made an implication into your possible agenda.

Also, my comment about God was not to drag religion into the picture, it was to emphasize the role belief plays in the way we, as a species and two individuals, interpret raw data to suit our ulterior motives, whether they be right, wrong, or otherwise (if you prefer, correct, incorrect, or neutral). Yes, that is an admission that I have ulterior motives. Ulterior motives are like opinions, and we all know what they say about opinions.

And while we're on the topic of glaciers: The glaciers on Kilamanjaro are receeding. That's a fact. Can't be argued. The cause, however, can be. Many would attribute the retreat to global warming. Maybe but there are other global and local explanations. First a local theory. Kilamanjaro is a semi-active volcano. Perhaps heat from resurging vulcanism is the cause of the melting glaciers. Another theory, on a more global scale, is reduced precipitation throughout the Inter-Tropical Convergence (ITC). This is possibly caused by particulate polution from industrial centers in the temperate zones (North America, Europe, Asia) preventing the sun from causing the daily heating cycle from producing storms near the equator. My money is on vulcanism.

Lastly, your title for this thread is "UN-Google Earth map climate change." The buzzword in climate change is "global warming." I assumed you were alluding to this when you posted the images and placemarks. My appologies if my assumptions were erronious. I guess we all know how to spell assume. First you take an a-s-s and add a U and a ME.

[asdf]

So what do you think about this blanket of smog that we live in? Does it provide us with extra vitamin C????? Climates and landscapes change naturally, but emissions help it along a bit faster. I am more worried about global air quality and the ozone er.. i mean a vitamin C overdose.

Check out Glacier National Park ... there was 150 glaciers in 1850 now there are 30...

[moabfool]

So what do you think about this blanket of smog that we live in? Does it provide us with extra vitamin C????? Climates and landscapes change naturally, but emissions help it along a bit faster. I am more worried about global air quality and the ozone er.. i mean a vitamin C overdose.

Check out Glacier National Park ... there was 150 glaciers in 1850 now there are 30...

I think this blanket of smog is nasty and it's our fault. There's no other major cause. I see these rednecks with their diesel trucks and just wonder about how they view their neighbors. We all live at the bottom of this ocean of air. Can't they do more (or less as the case may be) to keep it clean?

Yes, climates and landscapes do change naturally, and yes, we do help that along a bit faster. My point is this: is the benefit worth the cost. Global Warming is still solidly in the theory category. I don't think it's worth ruining the livlihood of millions of people based on a theory.

The article is on the Sierra Club website. They have an agenda they're trying to push. They say that agenda is saving the Earth. I say that agenda is keeping people in a panic so the checks keep coming in. Nobody can argue that there are 1/5 as many glaciers in GNP as there were 157 years ago. What one can argue is why. Less precipitation possibly a result of logging, natural global or regional warming, shifts in weather patterns, increased pollution, all could be the cause or it could be a combo of them all. Attributing that to human-caused global warming from one source (CO2 emissions), when it hasn't even been proven, is irresponsible.

[stefan]

I'm just finding it hard to accept that you post this kind of stuff at face value. The focus of your posts hints at an agenda, ie: look what we awful humans are doing to our planet.

well, i always have this agenda (GW is a separate entity from our direct incontroverible affects on our planet). i have been interested in using GIS data to see the effects of logging and fires on our forests, expansion of cities.

i have known environmentalists groups who use aeroplanes to fly over city expansions, logging, devastation to wetlands, taking politicians and whomever, to witness first hand the impact. i do believe for many of us, it's hard to appreciate the total impact we have as a civilization. even more difficult is to extrapolate to the past to gain a full scale appreciation of such over time. this would be a great tool to achieve such for the larger population, without the expensive flyovers.so this is always a subtle part of my agenda, because i believe we need to continually confront this.

on the other hand, i absolutely love science/geography, so being able to get my hands on anything that allows me to view changes in our planet, whether human related or nonhuman related, is very exciting to me.

for example, since the eruption of helens, i think a neat set of data, to integrate with google earth, would be the yearly spatial spread of lupine across the devastated area, followed by other successions. the contrasting this with similar/different documented spreads across lassen where our a part of the theory of succession was derived.

Lastly, your title for this thread is "UN-Google Earth map climate change." The buzzword in climate change is "global warming." I assumed you were alluding to this when you posted the images and placemarks. My appologies if my assumptions were erronious. I guess we all know how to spell assume. First you take an a-s-s and add a U and a ME.

ahh ... well, if there is one thing you should know of me by now, most of my topic titles directly come from the title of the article i post, whether or not i agree with the title of the article.
in this case i should have probably changed it to reflect my intetions of the post.
i suppose in this particular case, i was being lazy

[moabfool]

i suppose in this particular case, i was being lazy

Ah, being lazy. That's on my list for later today . But it's such a beautiful day. I think I'm going to drag the road bike out for the first outdoor ride of the year.

[JP]

I see these rednecks with their diesel trucks and just wonder about how they view their neighbors. We all live at the bottom of this ocean of air. Can't they do more (or less as the case may be) to keep it clean?

I'm was pretty much with ya until this diesel comment And I'm with ya pretty much after that comment

In a diesel there is in the neighborhood of a 30% gain in fuel economy due to the higher thermal efficiency gains. This is obtained by the compression ratios of the diesel vs. the gas jobs. Diesels are have a compression ration between 18:1 to 20:1 when the gas jobs are around 10:1. Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. On average, 1 gallon of diesel fuel contains approximately 147,000 BTU of potential, while 1 gallon of gasoline contains 125,000 BTU. This, combined with lower operating RPM's explains why a diesel gets better fuel economy than equivalent gas jobs.

Here's some food for thought: If 30 percent of passenger vehicles in the United States were powered by diesel engines, the nation would save 350,000 barrels of oil per day.

On top of that, you use the Redneck term and living under the same ocean of air. To the average person, diesels looks dirtier because you can see that black smoke leaving the tail pipe under acceleration. The gas jobs difference is, you can't see what is poring out of the exhaust under acceleration. Gas jobs are pouring out very unhealthy pollutants and it's just not seen to the human eye. The older diesels of old may not be cleaner, but the new school diesels are very much different.

Then there is that VW diesel that is getting 90mpg and they claim they can have a vehicle, running on diesel, that can get 190mpg. All this on a diesel that is cleaner than that of a hybrid or gas job

THE VW DIESEL

[moabfool]

Wow, that's quite a difference. I knew diesels were more efficient, and I've even considered getting one, that is until the price of fuel skyrocketed. The power and acceleration have come a long way.

I've seen a lot of diesels that don't belch that nasty black soot, but it seems to me that the Super Duty crowd don't care too much about keeping their emissions down. They buy a big huge truck that's right at their spending limit and they can't do the upkeep. Instead of keeping it running clean and right they throw all their cash into pimpin' the thing out. They have a beautiful truck with a dirty burning engine.

I know you've been to Utah, but have you been here in the winter? We just got done with a nasty temperature inversion. What is a temperature inversion? Usually colder air is higher in the atmosphere and warmer air is lower due to adiabatic cooling. This causes atmospheric instability. The cool air wants to drop and the warm air wants to rise. It's not good for your weekend plans, but it's great for your lawn.

When a colder, high pressure, air mass settles over the Salt Lake Valley in the winter time the air becomes very stable. The warm air rises gently to the top, the cold air settles to the bottom. This is usually accompanied by thick fog and smog, but this last time we just got the smog, except for a few patches of fog. It gets quite cold in the valley, but there is hope. The easiest way to escape is a quick trip up the canyon to go skiing where it's beautiful and clear with temperatures in the 30 deg range.

Unless a storm comes through to break up the stability, the emissions we create just settle in the bottom of the valley like a giant bathtub. When this weather pattern has entrenched its self, seeing people belch black smoke out the back of their F350 is really irritating, emotionally and respiratorially.

[JP]

They buy a big huge truck that's right at their spending limit and they can't do the upkeep. Instead of keeping it running clean and right they throw all their cash into pimpin' the thing out.

I know you've been to Utah, but have you been here in the winter?

seeing people belch black smoke out the back of their F350 is really irritating, emotionally and respiratorially.

It doesn't matter if it's a Ferd, Dooge or Chebby. A plethora of these owners want more from their engines. More HP, more torque and better mileage. The addition of Tuners, high flow exhaust, high flow air intakes, bigger intercoolers, etc. they have the ability to give these trucks more of what they're looking for.

Upkeep? An air filter The black smoke is unburnt fuel being dumped into the exhaust. Why? Not enough air. For any number of reasons, dirty air cleaner, restricted air intake and even the engine running on full tilt is dumping more fuel than clean air being sucked in.

I have never been in Winter to your great State. I have only soo much vacation time 11 more winters to go and I'll be all done with work, so I won't need to be here in Connecticut anymore or have to worry about vacation time

Again, you say the black smoke from the diesels, you cannot see what is coming out of the exhaust systems from gassers. Funny you say respiratorially, diesels engines produce hardly any carbon monoxide, a gasser produces enough to kill you.

[greyhair biker]

We use diesel engines underground strictly because they are not a firehazzard but we dont get respirator problems at all underground from diesel exhaust. I dont claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I wouldnt be caught dead with a gas burner underthere..diesel = low CO emissions, gas = bad on every level