Slashdot Mirror
2005 Will Probably be Warmest on Record
Nilmat writes "A Washington Post Article notes that 2005 will probably have the highest mean global temperature of any year since the advent of systematic temperature records. At the moment, the mean temperature is about 0.75 degrees C above the global mean from 1950 to 1990, approximately .04 degrees higher than 1998, the year of the previous record. Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record."
Like this one?
. volcanoes.reut/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/12/alaska
Correlation is not causation.
But it's the main requisite.
There's a ton of arible land in the world that does not have the absolutely-perfect-ideal climate.
The only people who really have a lot to lose are the huge-scale real-estate gamblers (companies like ADM who control a lot of currently nice farmland) - and that wealth will move to people who are now miserably poor (siberia).
Please explain to me what that's a bad thing.
Why, because an empty logical truism is all you've got as you desperately attempt to deny manmade climate change? Try arguing with the causation in Workweek Causes Climate Change". It's just correlation, right?
--
make install -not war
Wild grapes were groing in Sweden during the neolithic age, about 6000 years ago. We'd be lucky to even grow them in green houses now.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
No, correlation is not causation. But when you have correlation and the most accurate models imply causation, you definitely have to think hard about what you're doing. The fact that global warming was predicted by the models before the data could be taken further suggest that it's not simply alarmist readings of the data.
Science is hard; in many fields it's impossible to prove causation completely. But when you have a theory, and the theory holds up to all the available data, you act as if the theory were true and make decisions based on that. You don't over-react as long as there are competing theories that imply otherwise, but this is one more piece of data to suggest that global warming is very real and quite possibly man-made.
The "quite possibly" means that we shouldn't over-react; as you say, the correlation need not imply causation. But as the burden of evidence falls on the side of man-made global warming, it becomes increasingly dangerous to rely on "Yeah, but are you really, utterly, totally, completely sure?" arguments against action.
I saw a program, i believe from the BBC on Global Dimming a few months ago. The idea being that at the same that we have been upping the greenhouse gasses we put into the atmosphere, we have also been blocking out the sun with the various soots and particulate matter that goes with it. This drove us into a net cooling period during those years, as the sunlight was reflected back into space. The researcher explained that this may be why global warming hasnt been as evident as it should have been in the past 30 years.
Now that we burn cleaner gas, and try and be more environmentally friendly, this reflective layer of the atmosphere is getting thinner. this then compounds the global warming aeffect already in motion. perhaps that is what we are seeing today.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
After having read Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear, I am thinking people who pick sides on this issue just like to argue. Crichton is against claims of global warming. Everybody's got an agenda.
We don't even know how much we don't know about our planet. How about we try our best not to pollute the planet we live in while enjoying life?
PS I am not endorsing the book. It has an awkward plot and idiot characters listening to a lot of "explanations" by "experts".
The real question nowadays is: where would we want to live? Only safe place seems to be SF :P
Those irresposible Republicans! They're screwing things up across the entire galaxy.
Article
And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.
The author must realize that having record low eruptions in 1998 and 2005 is the cause of the temperature hike.
See what happened in 1816.
Some excerpts:
And this:
And don't forget the worst greenhouse gas of all: WATER VAPOUR!
Better start campaigning to remove all the water vapour emissions. Oh wait, water covers 71% of the earth's surface. No dice there...
Yes there are advocates for global warming, and "evidence" therein, but there is much evidence against it, and ESPECIALLY against man-made warming. Today's Calgary Sun article by Licia Corbella also has some things to say on the topic.
Are you actually suggesting that a web-site called "friendsofscience.org" wouldn't actually be friendly to science? Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Clear Skies Initiative allows for increases in pollution...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Living a city where there are two major cities sitting vary close to each other and a major airport between them. (Dallas - Ft. Worth) You start to see patterns that make you think a bit more about really is causing global warming. What you can all ways see temperature wise in the north Texas area is that it is most of the time 5 to 10 degrees F cooler West of the Dallas - Ft. Worth area. Then you moving east in to Ft. Worth the temp starts going up and the more east that you go the higher the temp gets. Done and told Dallas (being east of Ft. Worth and the DFW airport is all ways 2 to 3 degrees hotter then Ft. Worth. So, what is making Dallas hotter then Ft. Worth? The fact that the normal jet stream of air here moves mostly west to east. So when the Sun shines on the concrete or asphalt on the roads all day long and makes the ground that much hotter and then the wind blows the air over this increased temperatures of the roads and airport runways it just keeps building until it gets back over an area where there are less roadways to start cooling the air. Every one keeps looking at pollution as being the main reason for global warming. It is a factor that should not be over looked but no one is looking at the fact that cities are growing all over the world so this means that roadways are being added to and widened all the time. Thus adding to the surface area of a really big heater. Having lived out in a country environment I know that once the sun goes down it starts to cool off, but the city is not the same. It can take a city a hour or two to start to see any real drop in temperatures.
How about you re-insert the section of the quote that you edited that talked about the heat islands of populated areas before posting misleading information.
I see this a lot in articles about this issue and I think it needs addressed: "A vocal minority of scientists say the warming climate is the result of a natural cycle." Me: no duh! No one's saying it's NOT part of a natural cycle. What is alarming though is that the current trend has occurred faster than other periods in history which means an investigation was needed to determine just why that is. All the evidence has led to the affect of the industrial revolution. That's the one thing differing from all other "natural cycle" trends of the past. What can be done about it? Nothing. Short of an asteroid hitting us and turning our clocks back 200+ years I don't see anything meaningful being done to change anything. As the expression goes "the genie can't be put back in the bottle." On top of this, global population has forced the governments to lock down just where we can live tighter than a popcorn fart so you have a hard time escapeing the toxic asthma bothering gasses and pollution of the city.
XML causes global warming.