NASA Says 2005 Could Be Warmest Year Recorded

Ant writes "CNN reports that a weak El Nino and human-made greenhouse gases could make 2005 the warmest year since records started being kept in the late 1800s." From the article: "While climate events like El Nino -- when warm water spreads over much of the tropical Pacific Ocean --affect global temperatures, the increasing role of human-made pollutants plays a big part."

Comments

Make up your mind, NASA!

[bigtallmofo]

You apparently want Earth colder and Mars hotter. Make up your mind!

Sudden global climate change is a serious issue that should be dealt with, but it is interesting how on one side NASA feels it's possible to control and affect positive massive global climate change on Mars but fears comparatively tiny changes on Earth.

The difference is....

[kngthdn]

...we live on Earth!

2005 could also be...

[gralem]

the coldest year on record
the wettest year on record
the dryest year on record
the fewest storms on record
the most storms on record

Depending on where you live, your exact location could have any of these conditions. It's funny how the most generic weather predictions can always be proven true.

All in all, 2005 looks to be pretty scary. I wouldn't go outside, based on NASA's findings.

---gralem

There are other differences

[Fished]

There are more positive examples of differences. For example, consider Free Speech. America tolerates a level of free speech (including even speech that is offensive or subversive) that goes far beyond that tolerated in many other countries. Think about much of Europe, where it is illegal even to sell Nazi memorabilia, or Canada, where many churches are quite concerned that they will not be allowed to preach against homosexual practice.

In the US, we allow people to call themselves neo-Nazis and salute Hitler while holding a sign proclaiming that "God hates fags." And, as nauseating as I find those points of view, I think people should have the right to express them (but not to act on them.)

The bottom line is that the right to keep and bear arms is directly linked to the right to free speech (which most of us cherish). And one could argue quite strongly that the American tendency to hold opinions that differ from (todays) academic orthodoxy is itself a direct application of that same right of free speech.

If the rest of the world jumps off a cliff, should America join them?

Re:There are other differences

[zootm]

In the US, we allow people to call themselves neo-Nazis and salute Hitler while holding a sign proclaiming that "God hates fags." And, as nauseating as I find those points of view, I think people should have the right to express them (but not to act on them.)

An interesting sidenote of this is the stigma around "communists", and how self-proclamation of communism was effectively a crime during parts of the Cold War. Freedom of speech in the US is less immutable than its residents like to think, although it is at a high and very respectable level.

I like to think that my own country (the UK) has comparable levels of freedom of speech, and it's true, to a degree - there's some discrepencies (for example burden of proof in libel cases) which impede it to some degree.

The arms rights thing is an interesting issue. I believe the US should keep the right to bear arms -- perhaps a more rigorous licencing system might be in order in some cases, but in general it's how the country has developed and it's what works there. This is not, however, a "be all and end all" decision -- the US is not a "better" country because of this right (I'm also not sure how it's linked to freedom of speech in a modern society, although in the formative stages of a newer society I could see it coming in). The UK, given the right to bear arms, would probably be negatively affected. It's not part of our culture. The same goes for a lot of countries. A lot of Americans don't understand how countries with gun control can be described as "free", and a lot of countries with gun control don't understand how America can be considered "sane" -- it's what works in the situation. The US is a culture that was born in the times when people had guns, it's built upon it. The UK's devolution from a monarchy to a democracy (yes, I know it's still technically a monarchy, but the difference is moot in context) is a different type of formation of a modern society than that of the US. I don't believe it makes the country better, it's just what fits the culture.

On note, though, obviously there's people arguing against what I'd see as sane here, too. I've had long, drawn-out discussions with the kind of people who want to ban, for example, parties like the BNP, because, as deplorable as I find their policies and views, I should not have the right to stop them expressing them

It's a shaky subject, in any case. And this is getting waaaaaay off-topic.

Re:MOD Parent as exactly right

[Angostura]

Please feel free to show the evidence that the U.S. government is significantly more scared of its populations than other national governments. Feel free to work in references to legislation such as the Patriot Act, where appropriate. Or any legislative issues where gun ownership made a difference.

Global Uncooling

[Doc Ruby]

Global "warming" isn't going to just raise everyone's thermostat by 5'C. It's cranking up the chaotic fractal dimension of the atmosphere. Some places will get colder. Like when the Greenland ice melts, flushing fresh water into the North Atlantic, it will push the "Thermo Haline Circulation" farther south, making the warm Gulf Stream flow more directly from America to, say, France, instead of warming the Baltic. The UK will plunge into an arctic climate like northern Scandanavia, along with the rest of northern Europe. Other places are likely to also freeze or drop, though the average will be higher, meaning some places will become hellishly hot. And the kinds of storms we'll see in the ongoing transition will make hurricanes look like mist.